James Neal Buyout

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

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.

Hartley’s team was like that for one of 4 years. The rest is revisionist memory. And Hartley was let go largely because (a) that was the plan before the PO run caused his extension and (b) because he was a huge dick to the players. Apparently so bad that certain players have him in their NTC clauses.

His cup? Have a look at that team. A bunch of HOFers and a few other players who were elite.

Back on topic: Neal’s issues should have been known and didn’t have a lot to do with advanced stats, though those weren’t good either.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The rest is revisionist memory.

How right you are on that. After making that post, I went back and looked at his four year record here, and boy was I surprised, it was me having the memories of just one good season - I was going to keep that to myself until you posted this.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hartley’s team was like that for one of 4 years. The rest is revisionist memory. And Hartley was let go largely because (a) that was the plan before the PO run caused his extension and (b) because he was a huge dick to the players. Apparently so bad that certain players have him in their NTC clauses.

His cup? Have a look at that team. A bunch of HOFers and a few other players who were elite.

Back on topic: Neal’s issues should have been known and didn’t have a lot to do with advanced stats, though those weren’t good either.

People learn on the job. I think Treliving will never make a mistake like Neal for the rest of his career. I imagine due diligence and “process” about free agents has become a little more thorough.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

How right you are on that. After making that post, I went back and looked at his four year record here, and boy was I surprised, it was me having the memories of just one good season - I was going to keep that to myself until you posted this.

If you have to look at the stats to remember those years, you must not have lived through them

Lots of special things happened, it was quite the dramatic arc

Two years were good, the other two were special

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If you have to look at the stats to remember those years, you must not have lived through them

Lots of special things happened, it was quite the dramatic arc

Two years were good, the other two were special

Oh I watched most games on TV those years (hardly missing any games), and a few at the dome. I know we didn’t make the playoffs in 3 out of those four seasons, and we beat Vancouver in the playoffs that one year and boy was that exciting - I remember being in Banff on a date night and watching the last few minutes of a win (might have been game 6 when we won the series) and waiting to listen to the call in show afterwards. My point is that I enjoyed watching them even if they didn’t make the playoffs and won as the underdogs like in the Vancouver series, I think the late 80s and early 90s weren’t as fun because we expected them to win (I stopped watching for a few years then and got onto the Expos - that was exciting baseball).

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

Oh I watched most games on TV those years (hardly missing any games), and a few at the dome. I know we didn’t make the playoffs in 3 out of those four seasons, and we beat Vancouver in the playoffs that one year and boy was that exciting - I remember being in Banff on a date night and watching the last few minutes of a win (might have been game 6 when we won the series) and waiting to listen to the call in show afterwards. My point is that I enjoyed watching them even if they didn’t make the playoffs and won as the underdogs like in the Vancouver series, I think the late 80s and early 90s weren’t as fun because we expected them to win (I stopped watching for a few years then and got onto the Expos - that was exciting baseball).

Ah, got it.

Yes that first year was the lockout shortened season where they had missed for 3 years and it was one last kick at the can. Brutal losing streak, another miss, then Iggy and Bouw were traded for nothing and Kipper retired

The next year they were predicted by many to be last in the division but the hard work left them with a winning record in March and April and they left the season with some momentum and promise. In fact, in October and November, all of Gio, Wideman, Stempniak and Monahan broke bones and Glencross blew out his knee.

That third year they made the playoffs, the find a way Flames were so exciting. Brad couldn’t go another direction after the Jack Adams

The final year? Boy, it was a mess. Everything that went wrong could. You had the 3 headed goalie monster, an embarrassment externally and then making practice a logistical challenge. Brodie was out with a broken hand. Hamilton flat out stunk while adjusting. He was -11 in his first 9 games, and had only 5 pts in his first 25. October was just brutal. Ramo took over eventually in November and was playing really well through Dec and Jan, before blowing out his knee. Shortly after that, they went in a streak losing 9 of 11, and allowing 5 or more 6 times (!). Historically bad goaltending. So Brad goes at the trade deadline and bizarrely brings in 38 year old Backstrom for another 3 headed goalie monster. When he played his first game for the Flames, it was his first in 14 months. That was all overshadowed by the Wideman incident, after which the Flames would face 2 teams every night. One wearing stripes.

Tre jumped on the opportunity to turf Bob, saying he felt he had taken the team as far as he could.

It was an exciting time and the combination of factors that last year, I still had good hope that there was something to build on


Alas, because this is the James Neal thread, Brad hoped he was the answer but he wasn’t

[Jiri Hrdina]

nm

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

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

It's not two wrongs is it?

It's one team or another making a "wrong"

But pointing out the stats is irrelevant. My point was the team that had him up close and personal wanted him back, suggesting that maybe his decline was harder to predict from a Calgary standpoint than we think.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not two wrongs is it?

It's one team or another making a "wrong"

But pointing out the stats is irrelevant. My point was the team that had him up close and personal wanted him back, suggesting that maybe his decline was harder to predict from a Calgary standpoint than we think.

I would agree, the steepness of the decline was certainly not expected.

And at the same time
- Vegas could have known the asset had some demand and was of more value under contract than lost for nothing. Basic asset management. They would take the player at a certain price and term
- We don’t actually know what the Vegas offer was, and how they valued the asset
- 5 x 5 was only a Calgary media report, and I only see secondhand reference to it. (Honestly, that should at least raise an eyebrow. Why only the Calgary Sun?)
- a decline should have been projected for sure based on statistics and probability

All that matters is how Tre valued the asset - term and $

Term didn’t look good at all, even at the time. That was the type of contract many people thought would look ugly at some point

I don’t see why you take issue with ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. The 1 goal in 17 to close the season? Maybe McPhee thought it was just a slump. Who knows? Clearly he thought Neal had value as an asset, but not as much as Brad.

Two guys valued Neal. The full benefit of hindsight shows us that those two guys were wrong. That’s your two wrongs. Now if Neal has value, there is a ‘right’. Turns out Neal sucks. Two guys were wrong but only the wrongest guy got to actually make the mistake. I don’t see evidence of any other GMs valuing Neal similarly. Logically, they most likely didn’t.

[Bingo]

For sure the Flames out bid them and ultimately were the only team making a true mistake.

But losing an asset that sucks isn't a bad thing.

So Vegas with any offer that wasn't insulting had him as a valuable player to bring back, and therefore they didn't see the decline at the end of that season as too alarming.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Two guys were wrong but only the wrongest guy got to actually make the mistake. I don’t see evidence of any other GMs valuing Neal similarly. Logically, they most likely didn’t.

We won the Neal sweepstakes and lost. Obviously we offered the most, unless you think that for some reason there were other factors, like Neal not wanting to return to Vegas or play in Calgary, but I'm thinking that we needed to pay a premium over Vegas to secure his services and that premium being 750,000 (3.75 million over the five years) makes sense to me as a reasonable number and gives some credence to that offer as being legit. (Unless that's what Neal's agent told the Flames or media to get a better deal - always possible).

[TheRealPepman]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So Brad goes at the trade deadline and bizarrely brings in 38 year old Markstrom for another 3 headed goalie monster.

You're lucky I know who you are actually referring to. I almost had strong feelings toward that post. #backstrom

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by TheRealPepman

You're lucky I know who you are actually referring to. I almost had strong feelings toward that post. #backstrom

Whoops! Backstrom, indeed. I’ll fix that

[Calgary4LIfe]

The Lindholm 'gamble' paid off, in a matter of speaking. IIRC, he had also ended his last season in Carolina badly with only one goal in 15+ games (or something like that, wasn't it?). I seem to recall he was a really cold player when things ramped up and got tougher, but he is obviously not that now with the Flames.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The Lindholm 'gamble' paid off, in a matter of speaking. IIRC, he had also ended his last season in Carolina badly with only one goal in 15+ games (or something like that, wasn't it?). I seem to recall he was a really cold player when things ramped up and got tougher, but he is obviously not that now with the Flames.

Tre had a guy who was pretty darn familiar with Lindholm, who wasn’t north of 30

I’d hardly call that a gamble

[timbit]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Tre had a guy who was pretty darn familiar with Lindholm, who wasn’t north of 30

I’d hardly call that a gamble

Backstrom?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ah, got it.

...

The final year? Boy, it was a mess. Everything that went wrong could. You had the 3 headed goalie monster, an embarrassment externally and then making practice a logistical challenge. Brodie was out with a broken hand. Hamilton flat out stunk while adjusting. He was -11 in his first 9 games, and had only 5 pts in his first 25. October was just brutal. Ramo took over eventually in November and was playing really well through Dec and Jan, before blowing out his knee. Shortly after that, they went in a streak losing 9 of 11, and allowing 5 or more 6 times (!). Historically bad goaltending. So Brad goes at the trade deadline and bizarrely brings in 38 year old Backstrom for another 3 headed goalie monster. When he played his first game for the Flames, it was his first in 14 months. That was all overshadowed by the Wideman incident, after which the Flames would face 2 teams every night. One wearing stripes.

...

I recall this trade as being us moving David Jones in order to get something for him as UFA, and Minnesota wanting him for the playoffs, not us trying to acquire Backstrom to get another goalie. I also recall we played him simply to give him one last game, not anything to do with actually wanting him, or intending to do anything with him when we got him.

[Looks like he played 4 games for us.]

The pick we got for David Jones? Turned into Matthew Phillips...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I recall this trade as being us moving David Jones in order to get something for him as UFA, and Minnesota wanting him for the playoffs, not us trying to acquire Backstrom to get another goalie. I also recall we played him simply to give him one last game, not anything to do with actually wanting him, or intending to do anything with him when we got him.

[Looks like he played 4 games for us.]

The pick we got for David Jones? Turned into Matthew Phillips...

Yeah Backstrom was to make the cap work for the Wild to pick up Jones. Calgary got a late round pick for a guy they didn't intend to re-sign.

How was that an embarrassment?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah Backstrom was to make the cap work for the Wild to pick up Jones. Calgary got a late round pick for a guy they didn't intend to re-sign.

How was that an embarrassment?

The first 3 headed goalie monster is what I referred to as an embarrassment

An embarrassment of goaltending riches, am I right?

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure

[FBI]

Oh man David Jones.. there was a name I was trying to forget