Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

One could argue you are creating a 3 year trend based on two 1.5 season data points.

Lucic took a step down mid season 2 years ago. 27 points in the first half, and top 6 linemates. Then, in the bottom 6, production dropped.

So the result from 2 years ago was in between 1 and 3 years ago, but it’s not a steady trend. It was a step down mid year, if you look at season broken in to halves or quarters.

Now there is the chicken and egg argument
- was he demoted to the bottom six because he was not good enough ? 54 point pace, pretty normal for him career wise, I don’t know
Or
- is Edmonton no good?

Fair, but at the same time, I don't see Lucic in our top six, so its those latter 1.5 seasons that are more relevant to our situation.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

what? no.

...what?

You'd score 25 playing with McDavid and Draisaitl. Did you miss last season when Chiasson got 22?

It's been proven that you can literally get an AHL player on a line with McDavid and have him score more than 20 goals. So if Neal, at 6.5M is replacing that AHL player and scoring fewer, yeah that's a problem even if it won't look bad on the scoresheet.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fair, but at the same time, I don't see Lucic in our top six, so its those latter 1.5 seasons that are more relevant to our situation.

That is fair.

If you want to look at bottom 6 performance, I still think that when you compare guys like Jankowski, Bennett and Ryan (who are productive guys for bottom 6), to guys like Brodziak (9 points - single digits!) and Kassian, you can’t help but expect improvement

The Flames simply don’t have crappy enough players to give Lucic comparably bad line mates.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You'd score 25 playing with McDavid and Draisaitl. Did you miss last season when Chiasson got 22?

How many were playing with McDavid and Draisaitl 5 on 5?

Hint: Its not a lot.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You'd score 25 playing with McDavid and Draisaitl. Did you miss last season when Chiasson got 22?

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

How many were playing with McDavid and Draisaitl 5 on 5?

Hint: Its not a lot.

ES, he got 7 points with the big line, but also a large number of points with McDavid, Draisaitl or RNH as his centre. He only had one ES point not involving one of those guys on his line.

Then he got 13 (of 15) points by being on the top PP unit with all of McDavid, Draisaitl and RNH. In no other world is Alex CHiasson on a top PP unit.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

ES, he got 7 points with the big line, but also a large number of points with McDavid, Draisaitl or RNH as his centre. He only had one ES point not involving one of those guys on his line.

Then he got 13 (of 15) points by being on the top PP unit with all of McDavid, Draisaitl and RNH. In no other world is Alex CHiasson on a top PP unit.

Glen Gulutzan be like:

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

If the Oilers play McDavid-Draisaitl-Player X and Player X gets 40 points, that is basically any replacement level player.

Now remember the Oilers are paying (Neal + Lucic) 29 million over 4 years or average 7.25 million per year

Kassian got 14 of his 21 second half points with those two

But a home run and an Edmonton home run are different things

The major win for Edmonton here, and what the fans seem to love, is that they got out from Lucic’s buyout proof contract.

That’s it. Neal represents somebody who can be bought out if he doesn’t work out. That’s the bar. That’s the big win up there. They now have the option to throw him on the pile with Sekera, Pouliot, etc. Way to go.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but since we're talking about counting stats, the absolute totals are more relevant. Now, 17-18 Lucic did have much better ppg and pp60 totals than Neal in 18-19, but the fact remains that Lucic is trending down while Neal hasn't yet proven whether this is a trend or a blip.

For sure ...

And hopefully people aren't viewing this deal in a sense that Lucic is a) going to bounce back offensively or b) get an opportunity to do such.

The best thing about this crap for crap deal is Calgary now has the guy that does something other than score so you can just park him bottom six and let it ride.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

I don't know. I mean, yes, it's good for Edmonton that they would be getting production commensurate to the price being paid for the player, but at the end of the day that whole roster simply does not look like one that will improve significantly on their 80-points finish from 2019—even with James Neal scoring 20 goals on the top line.

· One team is bad which will remain bad after swapping one bad contract for another.
· The other team won the Division and the Conference, and should be in the conversation to win both again this year after swapping one bad contract for another.

That's a win I can happily concede to Edmonton.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

How many were playing with McDavid and Draisaitl 5 on 5?

Hint: Its not a lot.

Pretending hockey is only played 5 on 5 doesn't change the fact that Chiasson largely only scored when on a line with at least one of those two, and often both.

All situations, Chiasson played 785 minutes with Draisaitl and 474 with McDavid.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

For sure ...

And hopefully people aren't viewing this deal in a sense that Lucic is a) going to bounce back offensively or b) get an opportunity to do such.

The best thing about this crap for crap deal is Calgary now has the guy that does something other than score so you can just park him bottom six and let it ride.

I don't know about "bounce back" but I'd bet he gets a few more points just because any combination of Bennett/Jankowski/Ryan/Mangiapane/Dube/Czarnik is better than Brodziak and Kassian.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Weitz

While there might be a chance Lucic gets back to this point, he has been pretty terrible since Christmas of 2017. He only got 8 points after Christmas last year and contrary to the fancy stats he just looks terrible on whatever line he played on. He may bring toughness to the lineup for Calgary but if he is playing on anything but a 4th line he is hurting the team, and who is scared of 4th liners anymore? Its not like guys like McDavid didn't get their share of punishment even with Lucic out there.

I still feel at the end of the day though both teams will see this as a win, like many have said Calgary just didn't want Neal back.

From a team that felt the need to waste a roster spot on Anthony Peluso a half dozen times last year, trust me it matters.

Is it effective? Are they right to think it matters? Very different arguments. But without Lucic on Calgary's third or fourth line they bring in another Peluso option which honestly frustrates the hell out of me year in and year out.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

With four years left nobody claims victory after one season, especially the one where Neal is more likely to rebound.

But I hear you ... Neal will be judged on counting stats regardless of who he plays with because that's all he does.

The Flames bottom six will be better with the switch out for Calgary, and hopefully goal differential shows that as well.

[This post is terrible]

Paying 27+m for one line seems like a terrible idea in the cap era, especially when the rest of the lines are awful. If Neal puts up 20 goals and 40+ points on the second line, then that would be a home run.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ this guy recognizes terrible ideas. Trust him

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

Not really. As noted, Alex Chiasson was basically a 40 point player with McDavid and Draisaitl. If Neal only manages that much, then he's replacement level for what the Oilers had last year. If Chiasson falls back to a bottom six role, will he reach 20 points - a total he managed once in his three previous seasons? If he doesn't, the Oilers actually lose.

Neal needs to be a 70 point guy with those two for this to be a "home run". Most likely this will either end up as a fielders choice for them, or they are lucky, a bunt single.

On our side, I don't see anything approaching an offensive resurgence from Lucic. If he simply matches Neal's 19 points, we will be fortunate. The potential win for us would be if we can find someone who doesn't completely suck to take those 140 power play minutes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by This post is terrible

Paying 27+m for one line seems like a terrible idea in the cap era, especially when the rest of the lines are awful. If Neal puts up 20 goals and 40+ points on the second line, then that would be a home run.

This. If you leave Chiasson on the first line to get his garbage points and you put Neal with RNH and they click, then it's a win for Edmonton. But Neal didn't look great with Backlund, who is as close to RNH as you get on Calgary.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Right, but Lucic wasn't scoring 20 with McDavid.

So they traded a worse contract of a worse player who couldn't produce for a bad contract for a player who actually can.

If Neal scores 40 points next year playing with McDavid and Lucic scores 20 points playing with Jankowski, it's a home run for Edmonton.

Chiasson scoring 22 and Lucic scoring 6 is no different if Neal scores 20 and Chiasson scores 8 next year because Neal displaced him from a cushy position. Except that they would be paying more because of Neal+Lucic's retention.

Now if Neal just plays on the second line and scores 20 goals, that's a huge difference.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

With four years left nobody claims victory after one season, especially the one where Neal is more likely to rebound.

But I hear you ... Neal will be judged on counting stats regardless of who he plays with because that's all he does.

The Flames bottom six will be better with the switch out for Calgary, and hopefully goal differential shows that as well.

I'm not convinced that switching out Hathaway and Neal for Lucic is a net positive for the Flames.

I think Lucic - Jankowski - Bennett is worse than Hathaway - Jankowski - Bennett

But

Bennett - Ryan - Mangiapane is better than Bennett - Ryan - Neal

It's not earth shattering but I don't think the Flames are better than they were last year at this point and will get worse barring a home run for Frolik and Brodie, which still has to happen because Lucic is still making 5+

At this point I think the best possible outcome for Calgary is this is a lateral move.