Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[The Cobra]

Neal with his first assist of the year, as his record falls to 8-1.

His Cy Young Award chances just took a hit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Neal with his first assist of the year, as his record falls to 8-1.

His Cy Young Award chances just took a hit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm here at the game for work and neal looks more motivated/ full of effort than literally any point as a flame. I think this scenario wounded his pride severely. Rightfully so

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

The NMC is being heavily downplayed in this statement but also ignores the fact that his contract is a lot harder to buy out. It’s objectively a worse deal and he is a much worse player. This being characterized as anything but a total failure of a deal is hilarious, and you’ll only find that here

It was impossible to buy out in the first couple years in Edmonton. It’s harder to buy out in the first couple years here. After that, it’s way easier on the cap and way cheaper to buy out than Neal’s.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nik-

No one can make posts alluding to defamatory rumors.

No one can.

No one.

No one has been defamed, a since nothing has been published (and if it is true its not defamatory even then). And unless one knows what the rumours are, they don’t even know what the posts are alluding to. And if they do, then there’s no need to discuss further.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I wonder how Flames fans would react if one of their players sucker punched a Flames player.

If you've already been crosschecked in the chest twice its not a sucker punch just because you made the monumentally stupid choice to not look at your challenger.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Is it a good look for a mod to be talking about things that the mod group would otherwise warn us not to discuss?

Generally we only warn when people make specific allegations about a player related to their off ice activities.
I don't see that here.
If you do report it.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There are tonnes of responses which discuss why the Flames made this trade, but I never called it a "win for the Flames." I don't think it is a particularly good deal, but that is completely different from insisting that this is one of the worst Flames trades of all time. It is not. There is value for the Flames—not much, but definitely enough to have decided to pull the trigger.

I dont know where I've said that it was among the worst flames trades of all time, that would be you putting words in my mouth.

I was interested to hear you back up your claim of:

"the Flames acquired the type of player in Lucic that they believe they need"

Which quantitatively you didn't answer. There is thousands of responses that I'm not interested in hearing in this thread, but I would like to see why you believe we needed Lucic that is backed up by statistics.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Generally we only warn when people make specific allegations about a player related to their off ice activities.
I don't see that here.
If you do report it.

Just my opinion, but inferring something negative about a player’s character while claiming you can’t share details is pretty bad form. It kills discussion, looks petty and accomplishes nothing positive.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I dont know where I've said that it was among the worst flames trades of all time, that would be you putting words in my mouth.

The poster to which I was responding called the trade "a total failure." This was not meant to implicate you, but rather to explain that I don't consider it such as it has been presented by several others in this thread.

I was interested to hear you back up your claim of:

"the Flames acquired the type of player in Lucic that they believe they need"

Which quantitatively you didn't answer.

It is not necessarily my belief. I think the trade was more about the team's urgency to move on from Neal than anything else.

There is thousands of responses that I'm not interested in hearing in this thread, but I would like to see why you believe we needed Lucic that is backed up by statistics.

Well, you won't get it because it is not my belief. Management has spoken about what Lucic's presence brings and I am not really convinced by it. Again, my point was primarily to counter another poster's insinuation about how disastrous the trade was for the Flames. I don't think it was a good deal, but I also don't think it was terrible either.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The poster to which I was responding called the trade "a total failure." This was not meant to implicate you, but rather to explain that I don't consider it such as it has been presented by several others in this thread.

[/I]
It is not necessarily my belief. I think the trade was more about the team's urgency to move on from Neal than anything else.

[/I]
Well, you won't get it because it is not my belief. Management has spoken about what Lucic's presence brings and I am not really convinced by it. Again, my point was primarily to counter another poster's insinuation about how disastrous the trade was for the Flames. I don't think it was a good deal, but I also don't think it was terrible either.

Well your response to me was:

"I don't think it is a particularly good deal, but that is completely different from insisting that this is one of the worst Flames trades of all time."

Where at no point did I say it was one of the worst trades of all time. I'm confused why you are replying to another poster through me, but you do you.

Maybe you would care to indulge the board with why you believe Neal is successful so far in Edmonton as opposed to Calgary?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bingo

They can buy him out though. They don't get the gain in the first two years of cap space, but that actual cost is pretty similar to what a Neal buy out is.

It doesn't take a lot of searching to find Edmonton Athletic articles talking about how the Oilers should be able to find a home for Lucic because his actual dollars are lower than his cap hit (they were right, that's likely the 2nd reason Calgary did the deal), ... teams like the Senators take on those deals if you can find the right match.

I can't fathom Lucic looking like a contributor for four years ... I think the wheels will fall off both player, but Calgary may have an option or two.

Yeah, but one of the biggest reasons for buying a player out is to get the reduced cap hit in the remaining years of that player's contract.

Calgary might not get a better window to win than the next three seasons for a long time. They have a top ten winger on a sweetheart contract and a Norris Trophy D-man.

Both of those things are unlikely to be around after the next 3 seasons.

If I was the GM in Calgary it would be a huge priority to clear out cap hits that aren't helping, but Treliving traded a poor contract for one that is even harder to move out.

I just don't get it.

Also I don't think Lucic is looking like any kind of contributor now, and hasn't for a couple of seasons.

You did a stats breakdown on Neal halfway through last year that looked at Neal's shot, and scoring chance metrics over his last three seasons. He had some fall off in Calgary, but it appeared he was still getting most of the chances he did the two seasons prior.

If you did one for Lucic I wonder how big of a drop off you would find in that three year span? The results might be terrifying.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

The player is also worse. The player kind of factors in in how bad a contract in.

He might be sure.

But from what I saw from Neal last year I'm not officially calling that debate closed.

Neal was terrible, and if his offence dries up he brings even less to the table than Lucic.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

The NMC is being heavily downplayed in this statement but also ignores the fact that his contract is a lot harder to buy out. It’s objectively a worse deal and he is a much worse player. This being characterized as anything but a total failure of a deal is hilarious, and you’ll only find that here

Here we go again.

I have an opinion! And if you disagree with me you're hilarious, oh and I checked the rest of the free world and you're alone in your funniness.

So little time for crap like that.

The Flames wanted Neal gone.
Sounds like Treliving wanted to buy him out and was told no.
Guessing they shopped him for months with no takers.
Found a deal that gave them a player that they see fitting better.
Got some cap space they needed.
Saved some real dollars.

You don't have to agree with that, but it's not a tough case to make.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah, but one of the biggest reasons for buying a player out is to get the reduced cap hit in the remaining years of that player's contract.

Calgary might not get a better window to win than the next three seasons for a long time. They have a top ten winger on a sweetheart contract and a Norris Trophy D-man.

Both of those things are unlikely to be around after the next 3 seasons.

If I was the GM in Calgary it would be a huge priority to clear out cap hits that aren't helping, but Treliving traded a poor contract for one that is even harder to move out.

I just don't get it.

Also I don't think Lucic is looking like any kind of contributor now, and hasn't for a couple of seasons.

You did a stats breakdown on Neal halfway through last year that looked at Neal's shot, and scoring chance metrics over his last three seasons. He had some fall off in Calgary, but it appeared he was still getting most of the chances he did the two seasons prior.

If you did one for Lucic I wonder how big of a drop off you would find in that three year span? The results might be terrifying.

Right but the mistake of taking up cap space in the window was made when they signed Neal, not the trade.

The trade is about getting rid of a mistake and hopefully finding a better fit both in the room and on the ice.

So don't disagree with you on the window and the shame that they stuck a $5M+ zit in in it, but that happened the year before.

If Neal scores for Edmonton and ends up a positive contribution (he wasn't in Vegas or Calgary) then it's a good move for the Oilers for sure. If he's a negative player and his offence dries up AND Lucic can be a 50/50 player that provides a physical element, it's a pretty even swap and could even fall to Calgary.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Also I don't think Lucic is looking like any kind of contributor now, and hasn't for a couple of seasons.

I think Lucic endeared himself to a lot of fans with the smackdown of Zadarov, but his actual game hasn't been anything to be impressed with yet. The best you could say of it is he's not making boneheaded plays and isn't being a liability. But man, he is slow. I don't think his speed is even close to what's needed in the NHL now. Does any other part of his game make up for that? I don't know if it does.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Anyone insisting on keeping this dead horse beatdown going is an Oilers troll imo. Let it die. It doesnt matter what neal does elsewhere, we are better for seeing him gone.

"Anyone who doesn't think like me is an Oilers troll" is the kind of argument a complete moron makes. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah, but one of the biggest reasons for buying a player out is to get the reduced cap hit in the remaining years of that player's contract.

Calgary might not get a better window to win than the next three seasons for a long time. They have a top ten winger on a sweetheart contract and a Norris Trophy D-man.

Both of those things are unlikely to be around after the next 3 seasons.

If I was the GM in Calgary it would be a huge priority to clear out cap hits that aren't helping, but Treliving traded a poor contract for one that is even harder to move out.

I just don't get it.

I feel there's a few things at play when you look at this trade from the Flames side. First and foremost is cap space. Calgary gained 500K in cap space in the Lucic and Neal trade, and currently has less than 200K in cap space. They needed to make a trade to clear up some sort of cap space, and the Brodie and Frolik deals that were rumored during the summer proved to be too difficult to pull off for one reason or another.

The other thing at play is just how ineffective James Neal was as a Calgary Flame. This wasn't a "He's an OK player on a bad deal." type of season. James Neal simply had one of the most ineffective seasons I've ever seen from a Flames player. He was too slow to play in the top 6 and too disengaged to play in the bottom 6. He's a player with huge defensive deficiencies and when he was not scoring, he was completely useless.

He played the whole season like he left his heart in Vegas, and frankly the coaching staff should have benched him long before game 5 of the playoffs.

Also I don't think Lucic is looking like any kind of contributor now, and hasn't for a couple of seasons.

I hate this trade, but it's a trade that the Flames basically had to make because signing James Neal to a contract was a huge mistake.

A message had to be sent that if you're not going to be engaged with this team, then you're not going to be here. Tre made a mistake giving a 30 year old Neal dollar value AND term, and they had to scramble a little bit to find something that's bad, but maybe a better fit.

Lucic doesn't have any points atm but i feel like that has more to do with the fact that Calgary's bottom 6 as whole is just struggling right now. Lucic himself has played OK and is doing some good things. He's affecting the game in a lot of little ways that are leading to chances for the Flames, but he's far from perfect. His puck skills definitely aren't great and I feel like the coaching staff is using him a little too much. I'm sure he's gonna take some frustrating penalties at some point, but i think as the guys around him find their legs, and if he can start taking the puck hard to the net more consistently, then he'll be able to settle into a depth role on a line with some players with more skill.

The thing to remember about this trade is that there's still 3 more seasons after this one for both of these players and that only Baseball cares about what happens in October.

Right now this deal looks great for the Oilers and terrible for the Flames, but we are 6 games into the season.

With what i saw from Neal last season, I'm really interested to see how he slots as the season wears on. Neal relies heavily on his linemates to make plays. When the games become tighter and as teams find their legs, when the PP goes into a dry spell and things need to be switched up, when the team goes on a losing streak where does Neal slot? He's likely a straight PP specialist at this point in his career and Calgary had difficulty finding minutes for him when he wasn't producing or engaged.

The Oilers success is going to be measured by if they make the playoffs. They're off to a strong start, and James Neal has been a big part of that and if they make the playoffs he will likely be a big part of it.

The Flames success is going to be measured by what they do in the playoffs. If they make some noise in the playoffs Milan Lucic will likely have something to do with it, and that will be more than they were ever going to get out of James Neal.

[Wolfman]

This is the worst thread in extistence

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

The Flames success is going to be measured by what they do in the playoffs. If they make some noise in the playoffs Milan Lucic will likely have something to do with it, and that will be more than they were ever going to get out of James Neal.

I sure hope the Flames aren't counting on Lucic to contribute to their playoff success, or lack thereof.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

This is the worst thread in extistence

The trade speculation thread(s) say hold my keg.