Simplified Neal/Lucic trade Poll

[Gaskal]

Me looking at the other fellow poster names in the 'Love It!' votes..

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Me looking at the other fellow poster names in the 'Love It!' votes..

I’m over here hoping Lucic’s twitter post of a Flames Lucic jersey with #17 on it does in fact prove he’s going to be wearing #17 here.

...otherwise I’ll have to deal with this somehow...

[kehatch]

A year ago most of us were ecstatic to get Neal. A month ago most of us felt the Lucic contract was one of the worst in the NHL and were happy the Oilers were stuck with it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

A year ago most of us were ecstatic to get Neal. A month ago most of us felt the Lucic contract was one of the worst in the NHL and were happy the Oilers were stuck with it.

Yes. Opinions change. Sometimes rather quickly.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I’m over here hoping Lucic’s twitter post of a Flames Lucic jersey with #17 on it does in fact prove he’s going to be wearing #17 here.

...otherwise I’ll have to deal with this somehow...

That's sick, I might have to get my Neal jersey re-badged.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by kehatch

A year ago most of us were ecstatic to get Neal. A month ago most of us felt the Lucic contract was one of the worst in the NHL and were happy the Oilers were stuck with it.

This is a fan site after all, not the Athletic or some objective hockey analysis think tank.

It’s only hypocritical for those that like to mock other team’s fans for being delusional or seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I think that’s what all fans do generally, maybe some more than others.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This is a fan site after all, not the Athletic or some objective hockey analysis think tank.



It’s only hypocritical for those that like to mock other team’s fans for being delusional or seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I think that’s what all fans do generally, maybe some more than others.

I don't expect hockey fans to be objective. But I do hope we can be intelligent and consistent. I might be wrong, but I think a strong majority hated the idea of this trade before it was made. I don't think a fan should change their opinion because the trade was made. And I really struggle to see how this trade makes us better.

There are 3 reasons to make a trade. It makes business sense. It gives you the opportunity to get better. Or it makes you better directly.

From a business perspective this makes sense. It saves ownership money. But as a fan I don't really care about that. I do care about getting an opportunity to be better, but this trade doesn't do this. The cap savings are marginal, the pick is low and conditional, and the NMC/buyout protection reduces flexibility.

So this really comes down to Lucic VS Neal. You can argue that based on last season Lucic is the better player. You can also argue that he slots better on our bottom 6. But while possibly true, that's all baloney. The fact is both of these guys were incredibly underwhelming players taking up way to much cap space.

The better measurement is to determine which of these players has the best opportunity to rebound so they are actually functional NHL players, preferably in the top 6. And that is clearly Neal. He was an impactful player only a year ago and a huge catch in free agency. Meanwhile Lucic has been on a consistent decline for three seasons.

Maybe the Flames felt they absolutely had to trade Neal. Or maybe the dollars became the driving factor. If so, it is what it is. But in terms of making is better a Neal rebound was the smarter gamble.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I don't expect hockey fans to be objective. But I do hope we can be intelligent and consistent. I don't think a fan should change their opinion because the trade was made.

That doesn’t sound like much fun.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I don't expect hockey fans to be objective. But I do hope we can be intelligent and consistent. I might be wrong, but I think a strong majority hated the idea of this trade before it was made. I don't think a fan should change their opinion because the trade was made. And I really struggle to see how this trade makes us better.

Almost every transaction has a supportable position behind it for either side and I can’t fault fans for latching on to the reason that supports their team’s thinking. At some point you have to accept that is how many fans will evaluate these things or else you pound your head into the wall.

So yeah a week ago Lucic and his contract were a joke and best hope for Neal was a return to form. Now Flames fans look at it differently because of the circumstances.

Atleast for the most part fans own that kind of homerism although yeah there are some that insist only Oiler fans think that way.

[Poe969]

A couple of weeks ago I thought neal just needed rest and would bounce back. After finding out he didnt want to be here, my attitude toward him changed. The more I read about him, the more I thought he would be perfect for the oil. I was really surprised to read about people talking to Looch to convince him to come to the Flames, it made me think there was more to him than I originally thought. I brushed off his advanced stats because he was an oiler (and I'm not a huge fan of advanced stats) but it's hard not to get excited when you compare them to Neal's stats. Another thing is that neal was supposed to be "rough and/or dirty and wasn't at all, Looch always at least has that and the Flames really need that on the team imo.

[TheScorpion]

When was the last time someone called James Neal "hard to play against"?

I'm thinking... 2012?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

When was the last time someone called James Neal "hard to play against"?

I'm thinking... 2012?

Nice sig Scorp. But are you trying to attribute that quote to Boomer on NHL radio? I don’t believe that’s correct, it’s one of the Edmonton hacks commenting on Boomer’s GM ratings.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

When was the last time someone called James Neal "hard to play against"?

I'm thinking... 2012?

Probably the majority of hockey fans and specifically Flames fans in the summer of 2018.

Neal busted here and was traded but let's not re-write history on what a gamer he was prior. Was hard to play against, known for playing close to and occasionally over the edge. Erik Duhatchek even tweeted about being impressed with his leadership.

[Robbob]

The snarl that Neal was known for, never made an appearance in any of his games with Calgary. That is what made him so frustrating to watch. If he wasn't scoring, backchecking, or hitting you would think at least he could contribute with that aspect or his game which never happened. I was hoping with his signing he and Tkachuk would terrorize opponents, but that Neal was never here in Calgary.

Bottom line his game was never top six caliber. By the end of the year it wasn't even good enough for the bottom six. Only reason he will get ice time in edmonton is because they lack serious depth as they are not a playoff contender. Knowing everything we know now, he is not a fit in our lineup. He probably would have been eating popcorn which would have lowered his already dismal worth. Having 5.75M sitting eating popcorn is worse than bringing on salary retained Lucic.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Poe969

A couple of weeks ago I thought neal just needed rest and would bounce back. After finding out he didnt want to be here, my attitude toward him changed. The more I read about him, the more I thought he would be perfect for the oil. I was really surprised to read about people talking to Looch to convince him to come to the Flames, it made me think there was more to him than I originally thought. I brushed off his advanced stats because he was an oiler (and I'm not a huge fan of advanced stats) but it's hard not to get excited when you compare them to Neal's stats. Another thing is that neal was supposed to be "rough and/or dirty and wasn't at all, Looch always at least has that and the Flames really need that on the team imo.

We don't really have the perspective to qualify if Neal had an entitlement issue or wanted out of Calgary. It certainly fits the current narrative and helps justify the trade. But I am always skeptical that this is a good reason for a trade.

I am sure he was frustrated. The year before he was producing on a line with quality line mates in Vegas and was a highly sought player. Last season he spent most of his time with players like Bennett, Jankowski, Czarnik, etc and his production tanked. Now he was considered an albatross. Most players would be frustrated.

When he did get a chance in the top 6 it was on the shutdown line. He had very limited opportunity on the top line, and only when it was struggling. The coaching staff also seemed reluctant to move Lindholm to C to play with Neal and balancing the lines. I like our coaches and they had good reason, but you can't fault a player for being frustrated in that situation.

Keep in mind that this guy signed a 4 year deal in Calgary when he had a number of options. He was also considered a quality team mate and leader on his previous teams. It is likely a rebound in his second season would have cured any supposed attitude issues.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Despite time and some good perspectives I still think the Lucic deal is no good.

The flames went into the summer with a hole at top 6 wing again, a cap problem, and a boat anchor of a contract related to both. Doubling down on the bad contract means the flames are still going to have a hole at top 6 wing, and will still have to lose other assets for cap relief.

Obviously the flames didn’t see Neal as a fit at all, a year after his contract. That’s a little scary but stuff happens. I think this means they see Lucic as a sometimes top 6. That’s terrifying.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Despite time and some good perspectives I still think the Lucic deal is no good.

The flames went into the summer with a hole at top 6 wing again, a cap problem, and a boat anchor of a contract related to both. Doubling down on the bad contract means the flames are still going to have a hole at top 6 wing, and will still have to lose other assets for cap relief.

Obviously the flames didn’t see Neal as a fit at all, a year after his contract. That’s a little scary but stuff happens. I think this means they see Lucic as a sometimes top 6. That’s terrifying.

They didn't double down, though. Unless you think that this trade has the chance to either break even, or to be twice as bad. Neither seems likely, at all. They're still stuck with a bad player on a bad contract; they're either a little better off, or a little worse off.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by kehatch

A year ago most of us were ecstatic to get Neal. A month ago most of us felt the Lucic contract was one of the worst in the NHL and were happy the Oilers were stuck with it.

Agreed ... I was happy on Neal but concerned about term.
Lucic still has a terrible contract, don't think many are saying it's a good one now.

If you asked me three weeks ago if I wanted Lucic on the team I would have said NO!

If you asked me three weeks ago if I wanted Neal off the team I would have said YES!

This isn't just bad news, it's an exchange of bad news, and in that it's not out of the realm of expectation to try and understand the move from each team's perspective.

I took two days and wrote an article with assumptions in it. Those have been either nodded at or argued with, but for me they seem to line up. So Calgary's left with a better fit, and potentially less chaos in the dressing room, and with a contract that is worse but not relevant if ownership refused to buy out Neal in the first place.

I think the worse hypocritical move would be to suggest Neal was going to bounce back and score 25, and now say he's washed up. I was hoping his terrible shooting percentage would suggest that blind ass luck was bound to help him, but most of us just couldn't figure out where to fit the guy to even give him a chance of scoring.

So glad that's not a worry any more honestly.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by kehatch

We don't really have the perspective to qualify if Neal had an entitlement issue or wanted out of Calgary. It certainly fits the current narrative and helps justify the trade. But I am always skeptical that this is a good reason for a trade.

I am sure he was frustrated. The year before he was producing on a line with quality line mates in Vegas and was a highly sought player. Last season he spent most of his time with players like Bennett, Jankowski, Czarnik, etc and his production tanked. Now he was considered an albatross. Most players would be frustrated.

When he did get a chance in the top 6 it was on the shutdown line. He had very limited opportunity on the top line, and only when it was struggling. The coaching staff also seemed reluctant to move Lindholm to C to play with Neal and balancing the lines. I like our coaches and they had good reason, but you can't fault a player for being frustrated in that situation.

Keep in mind that this guy signed a 4 year deal in Calgary when he had a number of options. He was also considered a quality team mate and leader on his previous teams. It is likely a rebound in his second season would have cured any supposed attitude issues.

There is a reason people can change their opinion, by looking more closely and gathering more information.

On the surface, sure, they both did not meet expectations. Yes, Lucic had a downward trend in points for three seasons.

Guess what? Both players have the same number of points the last 3 years.
Also, Lucic put up over 50 points 3 years ago, and for the first half of 17-18, was on pace for the same.


There are some opinions in this thread that look at what happened at a surface level, then some that look at not only what happened but also how it happened.

Garbage for garbage is the simplest. You can make that case, but it is of no value in trying to figure out which guy stands a better chance of improving.

Lucic could get points with top linemates, in line with his career norms and expectations. Then with AHLers and goons, he can’t. (Big surprise).

Neal could not produce with any line on the Flames. No matter who he played with, he was no good. Top line, middle six, you name it. Made his line mates worse.

Lucic played with guys who are 10 ish point guys on a 4th line. Neal played with roughly 30 point guys, in limited utilization, with some looks with 50-80 point guys. Lucic was better than his line mates. Neal was worse

Wanting a bounce back next year is ignoring the elephant in the room. Neal was not wanted back.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kehatch

We don't really have the perspective to qualify if Neal had an entitlement issue or wanted out of Calgary. It certainly fits the current narrative and helps justify the trade. But I am always skeptical that this is a good reason for a trade.

I am sure he was frustrated. The year before he was producing on a line with quality line mates in Vegas and was a highly sought player. Last season he spent most of his time with players like Bennett, Jankowski, Czarnik, etc and his production tanked. Now he was considered an albatross. Most players would be frustrated.

When he did get a chance in the top 6 it was on the shutdown line. He had very limited opportunity on the top line, and only when it was struggling. The coaching staff also seemed reluctant to move Lindholm to C to play with Neal and balancing the lines. I like our coaches and they had good reason, but you can't fault a player for being frustrated in that situation.

Keep in mind that this guy signed a 4 year deal in Calgary when he had a number of options. He was also considered a quality team mate and leader on his previous teams. It is likely a rebound in his second season would have cured any supposed attitude issues.

First, he did get chances in the top 6. He played with Monahan and Gaudreau after most PKs. And he did nothing with those chances - every time.

To the second bold, how do you see him getting a chance in the top 6 with Calgary and rebounding? He was terrible on Monahan's line, and he is terrible with Tkachuk - no speed.

He was NOT getting top 6 minutes in Calgary. Period. (other than injury fill-in once in a while). And if he is playing bottom 6, we have already seen just how useless he is.

You won't accept that he had attitude problems, which is fine. SO in that case, it all comes down to a simple dichotomy: bad year and rebound, or fallen off a cliff?

I agree that there is some chance of a rebound. And on Edmonton, he will have a much greater chance of rebounding, because they have no other options. But on the Flames, he is NOT playing top 6. So there is no rebound coming. And then when you factor in the malcontent issues (there is plenty of smoke, whether you want to admit it or not), then it becomes obvious that he had to go.

Sometimes you just have to purge the problem and move on.