[News] Flames to receive EDM 3rd (Oilers choose between 20 and 21) in Lucic trade

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I just think that for trades it should have been treated like an injury.

The deal said 21 goals, not 21 goals pro-rated over an 82 game season.

Neal could have been injured in game 72 and the Flames wouldn’t have gotten the 3rd.

Yes injuries are to be expected, and both players have equal risk of injury in that 82 game season.

The thing is, the goal totals they picked were based off an 82 game season with equal injury risk.

If they negotiated terms on a 70 game season with equal injury risk, the ratio of expected games played is less, and thus one can reason they would have negotiated lower goal totals in to the trade clause.

Honestly it’s the most fair way to do it. That’s not being a homer.

[Jimdon]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I’m not sure I agree with this to be honest. I’d be pissed if it was the other way around.

He didn’t score the goals, and who knows if he would have.

Well the flames are about to start a play in series against a team that according to points percentage didint make the playoffs. They didnt get the wins, and who knows if they would have.

[1Nite]

Last fall all we heard from oiler fans was the real steal Neal, now they have seen the Real Neal, and they just crapped themselves.

[Ashasx]

Bahahahahahahahaha

[motorcrosser]

The real heel James Neal. What an absolute turd. His over-white teeth can suck it.

[TheScorpion]

Back in March I posted on another NHL board asking if the Flames should receive a 3rd in this trade if the rest of the regular season was cancelled.

Here were some responses (the vast majority agreed).

Around the League Report (trademark Gaskal)

Conditions are conditions. It is really just that simple.

No

Nope. You can't expect 82 games. What if Neal got injured in the last game and was out the rest of the year? Do you still make the same argument?

Look, it sucks, but there's no good solution.

Nope.

Conditions for the 3rd rounder were not met. It's really that simple.

Maybe you shouldn't have traded for Milan f***ing Lucic

So your solution is to punish the Oilers based on the assumption that the conditions would have been met, without actually meeting them? Again, there's no perfect solution.

Lol Eric Francis was crying about this on twitter the other day too.

It's not gonna happen, Edmonton gets lucky but in all honesty it likely wasn't going to transfer anyway, after the trade deadline Neal was bumped from the PP and was on a line with Khaira and Chiasson, he wasn't scoring two more goals in 11 games.

All moot though because the league is never going to go off assumptions, maybes and what ifs.

The conditions were not met, sorry but no 3rd for Calgary.

No, not a chance.

Haha some people will complain about anything. Treliving got fleeced, get over it.

You can make 500 posts on here crying about why you think they should, but the Flames aren't going to get that 3rd.

Deal with it.

[RedHawk12]

I don't think we should have received the pick. The conditions were not met, plain and simple. But I'll happily take the puck and hope we draft a Brayden Point type player with it.

[TheScorpion]

The conditions of the season weren't met, man! All 31 teams expected this year to go 82 games. It didn't. Therefore, you have to make adjustments to conditions and bonuses that hinge on a certain degree of performance over what was presumably a set amount of time.

[MrMike]

As soon as they decided to pro-rate player stats for bonus purposes this was almost a for sure done deal. It set a precedence and good luck over turning that.

[Sandman]

They will for sure give us the pick in 2021. This years draft is too good-even the 3rd round looks promising.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The conditions of the season weren't met, man! All 31 teams expected this year to go 82 games. It didn't. Therefore, you have to make adjustments to conditions and bonuses that hinge on a certain degree of performance over what was presumably a set amount of time.

Yup, if this was the only case that had to be dealt with, the league would simply say “conditions not met”, and be done.

But there were a bunch of cases for various things, performance bonuses, trade conditions, etc.

The league had to decide on a standard, and apply that standard to all cases. The standard was set on prorating, and when that was done, this was an easy case. The only remaining question was how to determine what 70/82 of a third round pick was.

The league determined that 70/82 of this years 3rd round pick was giving the option to defer a year.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The conditions of the season weren't met, man! All 31 teams expected this year to go 82 games. It didn't. Therefore, you have to make adjustments to conditions and bonuses that hinge on a certain degree of performance over what was presumably a set amount of time.

I agree with your conclusion that because 82 games weren't played adjustments needed to be made, but I disagree with how you got there.

Conditions are exactly what they are. If the conditions are not satisfied, the results arising from those conditions should not follow. I think there's a distinction between trade conditions and performance bonuses because I would not be surprised at all if a performance bonus clause explicitly stated "prorated to an 82 game schedule". I doubt a trade condition would have a similar provision.

My argument for the Flames would have been, instead of focusing on pro rating to an 82 game schedule, whether Neal may or may not have reached 21 goals, etc., instead use an intent of the parties and unforeseen circumstances argument. The intent of the condition was probably that EDM and CGY figured that Neal will likely bounce back and get around 20 goals, and that Lucic is what he is, and based on that, the trade included a 3rd coming our way. However, if Neal did not actually bounce back and continued to suck, then it would be a 1 for 1. What actually happened was Neal did bounce back a little bit and so the intent of the condition was met. In addition due to unforeseen circumstances, the teams weren't able to play a full 82 game season, which is not the Flames fault. Therefore award the pick. Gets us to the same place.

The issue with pro rating goals is that it's a slippery slope and sets a poor precedent with a lot of uncertainty. Should Ovi get prorated to 50 goals this season, etc.

[Dion]

Of course Oiler fans are going crazy over this

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by Sandman

They will for sure give us the pick in 2021. This years draft is too good-even the 3rd round looks promising.

Also a year sooner of development. Any team will push a draft pick later if they can.

It's okay because we know Edmonton next year will fall flat on their face and it'll be closer to a late second next year.

Unless Mike Smith somehow gets better next year. And Mcdavid and Draisatle have even more career hart years, and Kostkinen miraculously learns how to use his glove hand.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dion

Of course Oiler fans are going crazy over this

"buy"

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Dion

Of course Oiler fans are going crazy over this

What a baby.

Honey badgers don’t pout.

[Enoch Root]

the best part about this is that there is a very good chance - maybe 10-20% - that this pick ends up being the best player in the trade.

In fact, considering contracts, it can easily be argued that both Neal and Lucic have negative value (overused by fans, but probably applicable here), and therefore the 3rd is ALREADY the most valuable asset in the trade.

Also, Oilers will make it 2021 for sure, because every single person associated with that franchise simply ASSUMES that the Oilers will win the cup next year.

[Roof-Daddy]

So many salty tears.

[topfiverecords]

Bubble gonna pop under the weight of all that salt.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

The issue with pro rating goals is that it's a slippery slope and sets a poor precedent with a lot of uncertainty. Should Ovi get prorated to 50 goals this season, etc.

Had Ovechkin had a bonus clause for 50 goals, he would have been paid the money.

It's not like he is going to be given 6 extra career goals to asterisk his chase of Gretzky's record.

The application here is purely on money and other assets associated with the performance of the players. With most teams having completed 82 to 85% of the season prorated those totals to 100% is more likely than say had they only completed 50%.