Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Erick Estrada]

Not exactly an informative interview. Didn't really say a lot nor did he say anything to sell the move.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by bucksmasher

Probably been answered already but didn't Elliott Friedman call this exact trade a few months ago and get roasted for it?????????.

Roasted by the media, not so much. Roasted online? More so.

He went on 960 and floated it past Boomer who laughed at him at which point Friedman walked it back, said he was just throwing it out there.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Not exactly an informative interview. Didn't really say a lot nor did he say anything to sell the move.

He's been by the book on all interviews he's given. Almost feels like an NDA was signed to go along with this trade.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Roasted by the media, not so much. Roasted online? More so.

He went on 960 and floated it past Boomer who laughed at him at which point Friedman walked it back, said he was just throwing it out there.

Yeah we made fun of it here nearly universally because none of us thought it was possible at least in a one for one swap.

[bdubbs]

All I know from reading this entire thread is I hope we win the cup this year and Lucic scores the cup winning goal along the way.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Corral

Not sure what is crazy about giving Neal another season to prove his worth before taking garbage off the oilers hands. There had to be a better deal here somewhere.

Most likely Neal forced this somehow but I don’t have a clue how that came to be. Clearly he told the flames he was not playing for them again after being sat by peters in the playoffs.

No matter how you shake it this is poor asset management and treliving wears this. And to let your arch rival dump their albatross contract on you? Now that is crazy

If the team was indifferent to taking him back, and if they had other options than this deal makes little sense to me, I'll give you that.

However because of that I think you can assume the opposite.

The why doesn't have to be the guy was a room problem, it's possible, but it's also possible that Peters and Treliving didn't see the opportunity for the player to bounce back given the forward depth in Calgary and therefore they wanted to move him. That notion seems less dire to me though, which leans me back to the move him now.

The mistake was Neal. Most of us were good with the signing so I won't hindsight the guy. I assumed Neal was good for two years, average and then declining.

[VilleN]

Looking at Neal and Lucic's stats over the last few years, I don't really see why people assume Neal has a greater chance to bounce back than Lucic. Lucic has really only had one awful year... he had 34 pts the year prior, 24 assists... and I'm guessing he wasn't gifted the minutes that Neal was.

The way I look at this trade: The potential downside for the Oilers is greater - if Neal plays the way he did in Calgary, it will bring down an already weak forward group. While Lucic can't be worse than Neal was; at least Lucic has some intangibles - Neal has nothing but scoring and when he's not doing that you might as well be playing shorthanded.

[Red]

Gio was asked if toughness was still a thing in the game that seems all about speed and skill.
He said yes, absolutely. They all feel a couple inches taller now.

Don't kill the messanger.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Not exactly an informative interview. Didn't really say a lot nor did he say anything to sell the move.

If you just swapped the two worst contracts in the league for one another, (arguably receiving the worst one) what can you say?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This trade will look great for the Oilers for at least the next 2 months and we will see what they get when the season starts. If they get the same Neal we saw then this is a huge disaster for them as they will be in the hole $6.5M for at least a year and if they want to buy him out next summer that is 6 years of almost $2M in dead cap and for 3 years it is $2.65M thanks to the Lucic retention.

It's going to be interesting.

Neal had a rough year with everyone, but the best chance for him to bounce back in Calgary was to get him in the top six; something that looked difficult to do.

Willis just wrote an article for the Athletic laying out the Oilers lineup ... He had Neal on the left side with NH and Chiasson. NH is certainly better than Jankowski, but Bennett proved to be a good fit with Neal and certainly a player that isn't giving up much compared to what Edmonton has.

His PP units had Neal on the second unit with the likes of Khaira, Haas, Gagner and Nurse.

No guarantee the guy gets back to 20 in those scenarios.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Corral

fair enough but then who are the monkeys that assessed his value and decided to spend 25 million to bring him here? I mean something doesn’t add up. Either he underperformed or the flames brass is &@$&&&ing clueless

I agree with some watering down.

The "brass" seem to have nailed it in RFA signings, improving their draft record, and transacting (trades) in recent seasons. Lots of signs development has taken a big shot in the arm as well.

Recent UFA signings have had some warts when it comes to Brouwer and Neal for sure, and I certainly hope there's a look into why they missed the mark. Both had less that great underlying numbers, and one wasn't getting any faster.

But who predicts Neal going from 21 goals to 7?

[Vinny01]

I would say Backlund and Tkachuk are far better as a duo than RNH and Chiasson so if that is who Neal plays with I see this ending badly for Edmonton.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

If you just swapped the two worst contracts in the league for one another, (arguably receiving the worst one) what can you say?

I think if BT did say something he would express his disappointment; but there is probably an agreement between Flames and oilers, "for the sake of the players involved" to keep things positive.

[868904]

I keep seeing people asking “why not give Neal another year?”.

It wasn’t just that the Flames didn’t want Neal back, they also wanted to get tougher.

In one trade, they have covered the toughness aspect. They got arguably the best single combination of toughness and player in the league.

As the Francis article said, they killed two birds with one stone.

Some might say, why not bring back Prout or sign Michael Haley? Because those guys are strictly face punchers. Flames wanted a real physical presence and a guy who can play hockey.

There’s this myth that Lucic can’t play hockey. He’s not what he use to be but he still out up more points than Neal on one of the worst teams in the league playing mostly with AHLers.

If you ignore the contract, having Lucic is way better than having a Prout or a Haley or McQuaid. Those guys can fight but you wouldn’t put them out there regularly and they also can’t impact a game the way that Lucic does.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I agree with some watering down.

The "brass" seem to have nailed it in

RFA signings,

Yes

improving their draft record,

Sorta

and transacting (trades) in recent seasons

Not really. Elliott, Smith, Stone, Lazar, Hamonic are bad trades. Hamilton arguably.

Lots of signs development has taken a big shot in the arm as well.

probably true

Recent UFA signings have had some warts when it comes to Brouwer and Neal for sure,

Stone was a bad UFA signing as well. Considering they are all buyout candidates, I would say probably worse than 'bad' as well. 'Really bad' maybe? 'Awful'? 'Franchise crippling'? I don't know if i'd go that far but maybe.

'Warts' is an interesting way of putting it.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Bingo

His PP units had Neal on the second unit with the likes of Khaira, Haas, Gagner and Nurse.

Woof. Enjoy that PP time James.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yes


Sorta



Not really. Elliott, Smith, Stone, Lazar, Hamonic are bad trades. Hamilton arguably.

probably true

Stone was a bad UFA signing as well. Considering they are all buyout candidates, I would say probably worse than 'bad' as well. 'Really bad' maybe? 'Awful'? 'Franchise crippling'? I don't know if i'd go that far but maybe.

'Warts' is an interesting way of putting it.

You think warts are good? That's the only way I'd find it interesting.

Otherwise we're both agreeing it's been an issue, and a place of concern. I even got into how they missed the mark on Brouwer and Neal's underlying numbers and lack of speed at their age.

Stone is what he is. At 3.5M in today's NHL that's not a crippling signing, it's a guy over paid by about a million bucks as an insurance policy. Ryan was great. Engelland was value. The first year of Hiller was fine. Frolik has been good. Raymond was a face plant at the time they were trying to get to the floor.

Every team has one of these guys for the most part ... or have wiggled out of one recently.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Not really. Elliott, Smith, Stone, Lazar, Hamonic are bad trades. Hamilton arguably.

I think the only "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic.

Elliott for 2016 2nd (Kyrou): Kyrou looks promising so that hurts but Elliott did lead a team to the playoffs before just collapsing. "bad" is probably a little harsh for sure. Worth a shot since Elliott was a proven starter at that point.

Smith for Hickey (Wasn't going to sign), Johnson (meh), 3rd: Really the 3rd was the only real piece of value here, and that's not a huge loss.

Stone for 3rd + 5th: The trade value was fine for a rental...extending to a 3 year deal here was probably the mistake.

Lazar, Kostka for Jokipakka, 2017 2nd (Formenton): Lazar was never worth a second and was a bad trade from the time it happened.

Hamonic for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc): Dobson looks like a blue chipper and that being an early first is what makes this trade bad. Iskhakov is okay but actually outperformed by Pettersen in NCAA year 1, Bolduc looks like he's okay but nothing special. Losing that Dobson pick hurts.

I think the Hamilton trade actually in the end probably ends up positive.

In the end that works out to Ferland, 1st (Senyshyn), 2nd (Forsbacka-Karlsson), 2nd (Lauzon), Fox (3rd - Not signing) for Hanifin and Lindholm...which is still a good trade.

Only reason that looks bad was Barzal dropping in that draft and getting selected after Senyshyn...however Hanifin himself was 5th overall in that draft. Plus Flames still got Kylington and Andersson in that draft in the 2nd anyways who are better than the guys they gave up.

So yeah I think the two "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic, with Elliott also being "meh"

Lazar, Hamonic, Elliott for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Kyrou), 2nd (Formenton), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc)...yeah that's not great as a whole.

Adding Dobson, Kyrou, and Formenton to this roster in the next two years would look nice for sure.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Corral

Not sure what is crazy about giving Neal another season to prove his worth before taking garbage off the oilers hands. There had to be a better deal here somewhere.

Most likely Neal forced this somehow but I don’t have a clue how that came to be. Clearly he told the flames he was not playing for them again after being sat by peters in the playoffs.

No matter how you shake it this is poor asset management and treliving wears this. And to let your arch rival dump their albatross contract on you? Now that is crazy

I know right?

I can't believe Oiler fans aren't more up in arms about this.

[bax]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think the only "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic.

Elliott for 2016 2nd (Kyrou): Kyrou looks promising so that hurts but Elliott did lead a team to the playoffs before just collapsing. "bad" is probably a little harsh for sure. Worth a shot since Elliott was a proven starter at that point.

Smith for Hickey (Wasn't going to sign), Johnson (meh), 3rd: Really the 3rd was the only real piece of value here, and that's not a huge loss.

Stone for 3rd + 5th: The trade value was fine for a rental...extending to a 3 year deal here was probably the mistake.

Lazar, Kostka for Jokipakka, 2017 2nd (Formenton): Lazar was never worth a second and was a bad trade from the time it happened.

Hamonic for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc): Dobson looks like a blue chipper and that being an early first is what makes this trade bad. Iskhakov is okay but actually outperformed by Pettersen in NCAA year 1, Bolduc looks like he's okay but nothing special. Losing that Dobson pick hurts.

I think the Hamilton trade actually in the end probably ends up positive.

In the end that works out to Ferland, 1st (Senyshyn), 2nd (Forsbacka-Karlsson), 2nd (Lauzon), Fox (3rd - Not signing) for Hanifin and Lindholm...which is still a good trade.

Only reason that looks bad was Barzal dropping in that draft and getting selected after Senyshyn...however Hanifin himself was 5th overall in that draft. Plus Flames still got Kylington and Andersson in that draft in the 2nd anyways who are better than the guys they gave up.

So yeah I think the two "bad" trades are Lazar and Hamonic, with Elliott also being "meh"

Lazar, Hamonic, Elliott for 1st (Dobson), 2nd (Kyrou), 2nd (Formenton), 2nd (Iskhakov), 2nd (Bolduc)...yeah that's not great as a whole.

Adding Dobson, Kyrou, and Formenton to this roster in the next two years would look nice for sure.

We needed another steady defenseman and Hamonic was the best available via trade. A bit of an overpay for sure, but I haven't lost any sleep worrying about that trade.