Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

While I do understand the math and the logic of this trade, this is still a crap-for-crap trade with more downside to Calgary than to Edmonton. Neal had only one bad season and there is a reasonable expectation of him rebounding to have a better or even a much better season on McDavid's wing. Lucic had been in Edmonton for three seasons with both goal and point production declining in each one. There is no expectation of Lucic rebounding, as he cannot play on the top wing anymore. So, while Edmonton's potential reward in this crappy trade is a scoring top-line winger, Calgary's potential reward is a hugely overpriced Hathaway that can add some grit to the 3rd or 4th line. That's it.

This is a good point and to me it's the largest downside of the trade which I'm pretty meh on. There's more years of evidence that Lucic is washed. Less so with Neal. I wish we could have gotten more salary retention from the Oilers due to this factor. Like forget the draft pick, 20% retention and let's do this.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is such a terrible take that it's so far removed from reality. No, $9,000,000.00 doesn't just matter to teams with low budgets. That's actual cash. And this is business where all they care about is money. Imagine having a discussion in any other context where you would say "9 million dollars doesn't matter" and yet it has become routine on Calgarypuck to act like actual cash doesn't matter. It's the most important part of contracts, not the least.

These are the same owners who tried to rip off Calgarians in their last deal with the City because they are cheap (or good business people, depending on your view).

And did you forget about Kotalik? They could have just buried him, instead they threw him with negative value because for some weird reason the team likes money.

For a lot of teams 9M is the difference from making money and losing money on the team. It's absurd to pretend it doesn't matter.

Eeesh. Take it easy there bud, throwing out terms like 'terrible take'. That's enough for me to pass on responding to you with level headed thoughts regarding the actual topic.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

31 going on 32 year olds don't go year to year with equal chances of getting better, staying the same or getting worse.

They all decline.

He could bounce back and then decline at a more normal rate but this isn't flipping coins.

If Neal doesn't bounce back he's a guy that can only score on a line that won't give him the opportunities to score. Heck he may not be even given the chance to bounce back because there's no room for him in the top six in Calgary.

Lucic will be what he is. Limited offense and hopefully big and scary. But he's not being prevented from doing what he's supposed to do by not getting out with the players he needs in the first place.

I'm still working to confirm, but there are plenty of careers of players in history you can look back on and find one down year early in their 30s, that still went on to finish out a decent career into their late 30s without a massive drop off.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Why wouldn’t you want to put a positive spin on every move, even if nothing but slightly? It’s a sports team. It’s fun. We spend money on it because we choose to.

I love breaking every move down because I enjoy being more invested, voluntarily, so I enjoy hearing both sides of the table. But at the end of the day, I’m in for the fun so I might as well enjoy it. I think the players fit for what both teams need, and was upset Treliving couldn’t pull more for taking on a more restrictive contract. I guess they considered $500k and a potential 3rd fair. I don’t believe we see that 3rd and I’m looking forward to seeing Lucic on the ice!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don’t get the Ferland love, he is as much a question mark as Neal or Lucic.

Back to back 17+ goal seasons, better skater than Neal or Lucic have been at ANY point in their careers, proven chemistry with Gaudreau and Monahan (statistically that line 5v5 was no worse than Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm contrary to popular belief)... but you don't get the Ferland love.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Why do you want to buy out Michael Stone?

Even if he's been passed on the depth chart, give him the preseason to show the league he's suffering no ill effects from the blood clots and you can trade for something.

Or you keep him because injuries will happen and he's a good player.

No need for it, just my opinion.

It's really tough to have your #7 defenseman be making 3.5M a year. And that's what Stone has become, healthy or not. That's 3.5M that becomes 1,166,667M over two years with a buyout, it makes a lot of sense if we can't find a taker. We will need every penny of cap space with all our RFAs still unsigned.

It shouldn't be plan A, as I think certain players on our roster - Hamonic, Frolik, and maybe even hopefully Stone himself - have trade value, but it should definitely be an option during the second buyout window.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not many questions around Lucic. His excuses have run out and we know what he is IMO. Like I said, this trade is just admitting defeat on the Neal signing a year into it. Time to move on.

I'm not sure his excuses have run out.

- I don't blame Lucic for not being able to keep up with McDavid. McDavid is the single fastest player in the NHL, even Gaudreau seemed to have a pace mismatch with him when they've played together.
- I don't think RNH is a very good line driver. He's a big name, but not more than a big name
- And Edmonton's bottom six might not even constitute a playoff team in the AHL outside of, well Lucic.
- Lucic's 5v5 primary assist rate last year was pretty solid
- Lucic's underlying numbers in general are not indicative of a player who's "donezo". Contrast his with, say, Iginla at the end of his career and Iginla was an anchor on everyone. Lucic isn't that, just yet. Neal based on last year might actually be just that, because he was a drag on literally everyone. Sam Bennett was the only one that Neal seemed to not anchor down completely, but Bennett deserves more than feeding Neal for muffins.
- Lucic is a screen man, on a team where Adam Larsson, Darnell Nurse, and Kris Russell are some of the regular point shots being launched at net.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It’s been one year of Bill Peters and Hamonic is not the reason we lost to Colorado in 5 games.

Hamonic is not the reason we lost to Colorado in 5 games - agreed. He wasn't even the worst player on his pair in that particular series, that would be Hanifin. But Hanifin has the excuse of being a 21 year old Dman who had a downswing. Hamonic really brings nothing if he's not playing a tight gap, and his consistency in that area is very concerning for a pending UFA who we may not want to lock down past next year. But I am digressing here.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Maybe it’s the core that’s the problem. Again.

The core is a problem only in a sense that we, again, don't have that franchise caliber first line center that championship contenders naturally have (Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron, Crosby, Malkin, Kuznetsov, Backstrom). Besides that though, they're a very high character group and I don't enjoy all the flack they take for manufactured locker room or attitude problems.

Originally Posted by 4X4

So, pretty much Neal. Made zero impact all year long. I can't remember one time I said F-yeah, but there were many F-yous.

I can remember one. Valimaki to Gaudreau to Neal against the Avs, must have been November by my guess. That was exactly one.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Acquired as a bottom six forward that is tough and intimidating to play in a game that is progressively becoming more and more about speed, skill, vision, playmaking, strength and strategic defending.

It already has failed. We’re locked into 4 years of Lucic. There’s no escaping this deal if Lucic continues to slide to the point of being unplayable. Which is what we’ve been mocking the Oilers about for 3 years.

Now we’re paying a position locked bottom six 5.25 million.

At no point in time has anyone wanted Treliving to go out and give a bottom six player $5.25 x 4 so why go out and acquire one just because James Neal has put egg on your face.

1) Line construction is about balance. Skill is a no-brainer but I've always talked about the a Speed-Speed-Power ratio as being ideal, as well as playmaker-playmaker-Goalscorer. Sure, there's no magic solution, but it's a pretty easy-to-identify combination. If you pair Lucic with two speed players, for instance Mangiapane and Ryan, or Dube and Czarnik, or Bennett and Mangiapane, or whatever, he certainly brings elements that offsets and complements those linemates. Of course you'd love it if he had a more explosive stride, as Ferland above, but he clearly does bring other elements in terms of details that help his line, which manifest in his underlying numbers not being a drag.

2) There are always options to, some extent, "escape this deal". Retained salary is one - if he can bounce back to being even a half-decent bottom sixer you can cut his cap hit down to 2.625M and probably find a taker. A deal with Seattle is another. Or the fact that his actual dollars owned are exceeded by his cap hit is actually beneficial if sending him to a budget team such as Arizona, Florida, Carolina, or Ottawa. If Ryan Reaves is able to make 2.775M for being a 4th line scrub, these scenarios don't sound out-there at all. Buyouts are not a solution either, you effectively double the period of cap impact on a team with a buyout. For instance the Kings will be hit with a cap penalty for Mike Richards' buyout until 2031-32. That's insane. That means someone after Richards won his last Stanley Cup will be NHL eligible by the time Richards' buyout cap hit is out of the picture. And that applies to James Neal too - it was never an overly viable solution to buy him out.

3) We are paying a bottom six position 5.25M. It's absolutely unideal. But it'd far more ideal than paying a press box filler 5.75M while still paying 1.0M+ for someone to fill that role. James Neal was the 13th best forward on our team last year by almost every metric. Just think about that.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

...


Which is why Hathaway was so valuable. He added grit along with motor, penalty kill, and was able to produce a decent amount for the ice time, position and linemates he was given.

The Myth of Garnet Hathaway.

- He had incredibly inflated shooting percentage last year. He may never again even hit five goals.
- He was a good second or third unit penalty killer, but there are plenty of capable roster players - Bennett, Monahan, Dube, and Mangiapane who can pick up where he left off. We still presumably have Backlund, Lindholm, Ryan, and Jankowski so our PK is just fine.
- Hathaway has been given some really cushy linemates the last two years. Never has he even been the second best player on his line. Consistently a distant third.
- Lucic adds all that grit / motor stuff, and he does it in ways that apparently manifest in shot differentials, whereas outside of his time with Mangiapane-Ryan Hathaway was consistently a possession black hole here. This is probably due to Lucic being more skilled than Hathaway will ever be.

Lucic fits the same role Hathaway did and has at minimum a superior track record. He's more expensive, but there was no poofing Neal's contract away either. Did we really want Neal replacing Hathaway's role? Or did we really want more Bennett - Jankowski - Neal?

[PugnaciousIntern]

Neal most likely starts the season on the top line. Huge expectations, likely a bump in points.

Lucic likely starts on the third or fourth line. Adds grit, low production expectations, likely no big bump in points.

It just seems like both teams got better, contracts aside

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

I’m sorry but these kind of statements when Lucic has yet to even put on a practice jersey for the team is incredibly obnoxious. He may not be any better than last year, but he might also improve. There is absolutely zero way of knowing when we’re still 60 days away from training camp. Lots of people hated the Peters signing and Lindholm trade when they happened.

But Neal can't, couldn't and won't improve because he's the outgoing player? That's obnoxious.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

That's enough for me to pass on responding to you with level headed thoughts regarding the actual topic.

I don't think there's much level headed thoughts to be discussed when your argument stems from "teams don't care about millions of dollars."

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'm still working to confirm, but there are plenty of careers of players in history you can look back on and find one down year early in their 30s, that still went on to finish out a decent career into their late 30s without a massive drop off.

I'm sure there's an example. But there won't be a trend, and you were just assuming they were equal chances occurrences.

They're not.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Why wouldn’t you want to put a positive spin on every move, even if nothing but slightly? It’s a sports team. It’s fun. We spend money on it because we choose to.

I love breaking every move down because I enjoy being more invested, voluntarily, so I enjoy hearing both sides of the table. But at the end of the day, I’m in for the fun so I might as well enjoy it. I think the players fit for what both teams need, and was upset Treliving couldn’t pull more for taking on a more restrictive contract. I guess they considered $500k and a potential 3rd fair. I don’t believe we see that 3rd and I’m looking forward to seeing Lucic on the ice!

Yeah that's my angle too.

You can't be an apologist, but seeing some upside in things is part of being a fan.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I tried to point out earlier in the thread that Lucic’s decline was correlated with deployment ...

To me, this is trying, desperately, to make sense out of something that's not very sensible. The correlation is reversed. Lucic's performance did not decline with deployment. Lucic's deployment declined with his performance. We all want this to work, I get it. There should be a lot of upside reward in a gamble of this magnitude. With Neal, there is at least some upside, if he improves. With Lucic - there isn't; or, well, I don't see much of it. And I do hope I am wrong on this.

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

...
It’s weird. I used to like Lucic when he was helping beat Vancouver and then playing with iggy. Then he went to Edmonton and I really disliked him. All of a sudden I like him again.

I did like Lucic in Boston and I really wanted him to sign in Calgary after Boston. But not anymore. I don't have a lot of respect for players who stop performing after signing a massive contract.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm sure there's an example. But there won't be a trend, and you were just assuming they were equal chances occurrences.

They're not.

Yes. It's Schrodinger's hockey player. You, nor I can predict the future.

You can find all sorts of data, analytics, historical charts and a spreadsheet of what Neal is eating daily for breakfast but you still can't predict whether Neal's performance would be better, the same, or worse than last year. There are too many factors to practically consider.

And now you won't be able to anyways, so it's all moot.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't think there's much level headed thoughts to be discussed when your argument stems from "teams don't care about millions of dollars."

I've got plenty to add on the topic of actual cash vs cap hit. But I won't.

[CanadaMatt]

Nevermind

[868904]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Yup good points; Not to mention Neal's lack of effort probably pissed a few guys who worked hard all season to get to the playoffs. Neal's nose out of joint likely had other implications, distractions. Flames should have sat Neal at the first sign of trouble and kept him there until he decided to get with the program. Really disappointed with how much room Brouwer and Neal were given, probably because the coaches wanted to justify BT's acquisitions.

Do you think that in today’s day and age that’s GM just acquires whoever they want without consulting with the coaches?

We know that Tre and Gulutzan spoke everyday and I doubt that’s any different with Peters.

GG and Peters has input into the Brouwer and Neal signings.

It’s fair to criticize the management and pro scouting team for not recognizing that Neal, if not scoring, does not contribute anything else. I don’t think you can say Tre forced these players on the coaches.

[TheOnlyBilko]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

He’ll likely score 20+. A fire hydrant playing with McDavid would do likewise.

I'm not sure why almost everyone thinks he'll be playing with Connor McDavid? I'll tell everyone right now, ill go farther & i WILL GUARANTEE James Neal won't be playing with McDavid on a regular basis, he's way to slow to play with McDavid it's just not gonna happen. He will get a chance with Ted Nugent but that won't last long either since Nugent is up against the top lines usually trying to shut them down and Neal don't play defense either.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

But Neal can't, couldn't and won't improve because he's the outgoing player? That's obnoxious.

Show me where I said that. There’s reason to believe that both players may or may not improve. But statements like “this is already a loss” before either player has hit the ice is chicken little at its finest.

[stang]

Originally Posted by TheOnlyBilko

I'm not sure why almost everyone thinks he'll be playing with Connor McDavid? I'll tell everyone right now, ill go farther & i WILL GUARANTEE James Neal won't be playing with McDavid on a regular basis, he's way to slow to play with McDavid it's just not gonna happen. He will get a chance with Ted Nugent but that won't last long either since Nugent is up against the top lines usually trying to shut them down and Neal don't play defense either.

Tippet?

[dammage79]

I'd agree. Neals familiarity with Tippett may help a bunch. then again hes not 24 like he was last time he played for Tippett.

End of the day. This trade on its own sucks to look at. But I really want to see what Trelivings finish touches on this roster will be before anything else is said.

Lucic is a better fit given the availability of roster spots. He knows his role, theres no surprises.

[TheScorpion]

Am I the only one who doesn't care at all about what Neal does in Edmonton?

Nothing he does for that terrible team will change how poor a fit he was here. We could -- and did -- spitballi ad nauseum about line combos and possible sources of motivation, but his totally unconvincing performance last year will not be difficult to improve upon. All Lucic has to do is to be a presence out there. Neal was never a presence.

If Lucic can light a fire under this team with huge hits (and remember, he tied his career-high in them last year), then I really couldn't care less about how many tap-ins Neal gets playing with McDavid.