I Like Milan Lucic

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Your comment highlights how bad he is when a normal play expected by a AHL callup who would be sent down if they messed up the play is used to pump Lucic's tires.

This is not even remotely true. At least not in so far as the instances I have highlighted are concerned.

[pepper24]

I didn't like the trade in the summer and still don't like it now. Not sure if I ever will. I remember laughing at the Oilers how they had a terrible player on an untradeable contract. Now the league is laughing at us.

Neal came off 2 long playoff runs and with a long summer is returning to his old form. Lucic on other hand is too slow. He adds some toughness but we can get that near league minimum while having Neal return to his usual 20+ goal season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Milan Lucic has made an impression in a few games, in different ways.

- The face off win that led to Gio feeding Mangiapane on the GWG vs Philly
- The pass to Bennett on the 3rd goal vs Detroit, where his hard forecheck terrified the D into gifting him the puck
- I like that he stood up for Czarnik with Zadorov

His line was the best line against Detroit after Mangiapane was hurt

I haven’t seen him floating back like a lazy ass while watching a wide open opponent drilling home a one timer. He has not hurt the club, not a nuclear accident that is damaging to the team, at least on the ice

From a business sense then?

People moan and groan about about the cap hit. Yeah it’s not great but Treliving has done such a great job on so many other contracts that he can afford a bit of an ugly one. Consider the total cost when you roll some good contracts plus this bad one together
I don’t think anyone would blink if Johnny or Lindholm were making at least a million more

Say you had 23.2 million to spend and 4 roster spots to fill

Gaudreau + Monahan + Lindholm + Lucic = 23.2 M
McDavid and Draisaitl and the extra 750 they are paying for Lucic make 21.75 up there, so all you can add is a couple of league min guys

So no, the cap hit isn’t ideal, but every team has some sub ideal contracts

* Hint: if you are losing an argument about Flames contracts because of Lucic’s deal, you are not having the right argument

If Lucic has a very noticeable positive impact in a third of the games, that isn’t too bad.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If Lucic has a very noticeable positive impact in a third of the games, that isn’t too bad.

To add to this, I've noticed a lot of the 3rd period chippiness (particularly with a lead) on the teams' first line has dropped... outside of LA haha. That could be due to a lot of other things, but I'd like to think Lucic has a part to play in that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I didn't like the trade in the summer and still don't like it now. Not sure if I ever will. I remember laughing at the Oilers how they had a terrible player on an untradeable contract. Now the league is laughing at us.

Neal came off 2 long playoff runs and with a long summer is returning to his old form. Lucic on other hand is too slow. He adds some toughness but we can get that near league minimum while having Neal return to his usual 20+ goal season.

If Neal scores 80 goals in 4 years in Edmonton I think it's fair to say Calgary got fleeced even though keeping Neal may not have been an option.

But parts of one October with a 34% shooting percentage certainly isn't enough for me to assume the guy I saw lost last year has found it again.

[TheIronMaiden]

Trade aside how bad is Lucic's contract compared to others in the league. for simplicity's sake I havent included all the Ntc and Nmc because the small differences between the two can make things convoluted quickly. This is more or less a direct comparison of some of the leagues worst contracts' cap and term. I suppose the point is to show that although Lucic's contract is objectively bad, it is not some unprecedented albatross.

Lucic, Age: 31, $5,250,000 Contract lasts until 2023.

• Parise, Age: 35, $7,538,461 Contract lasts until 2025
• Bobby Ryan, Age 32, $7,250,000 Contract lasts until 2021
• Weber, Age: 34, $7,857,143 Contract lasts until 2026
• Frans Nielsen, Age: 35, $5,250,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Abdelkader, Age: 32, $4,250,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Seabrook, Age: 34, $6,875,000 Contract lasts until 2024
• Kris Russell, Age: 32, $4,000,000 Contract lasts until 2021
• Eriksson, Age:34, $6,000,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Okposo, Age: 31, $6,000,000 Contract lasts until 2023

Other deals that aren’t so bad now, but clearly won't be better value before Lucic's contract is up.

• Pacioretty Age: 30, $7,000,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Hörnqvist Age: 32, $5,300,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Price Age: 32, $10,500,000 Contract lasts until 2026
• Pavelski, Age: 35 $7,000,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Suter, Age:34, $7,538,461 Contract lasts until 2025
• Kovalchuk, Age: 36 ,$6,250,000 Contract lasts until 2021

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Trade aside how bad is Lucic's contract compared to others in the league. for simplicity's sake I havent included all the Ntc and Nmc because the small differences between the two can make things convoluted quickly. This is more or less a direct comparison of some of the leagues worst contracts' cap and term. I suppose the point is to show that although Lucic's contract is objectively bad, it is not some unprecedented albatross.

Lucic, Age: 31, $5,250,000 Contract lasts until 2023.

• Parise, Age: 35, $7,538,461 Contract lasts until 2025
• Bobby Ryan, Age 32, $7,250,000 Contract lasts until 2021
• Weber, Age: 34, $7,857,143 Contract lasts until 2026
• Frans Nielsen, Age: 35, $5,250,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Abdelkader, Age: 32, $4,250,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Seabrook, Age: 34, $6,875,000 Contract lasts until 2024
• Kris Russell, Age: 32, $4,000,000 Contract lasts until 2021
• Eriksson, Age:34, $6,000,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Okposo, Age: 31, $6,000,000 Contract lasts until 2023

Other deals that aren’t so bad now, but clearly won't be better value before Lucic's contract is up.

• Pacioretty Age: 30, $7,000,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Hörnqvist Age: 32, $5,300,000 Contract lasts until 2023
• Price Age: 32, $10,500,000 Contract lasts until 2026
• Pavelski, Age: 35 $7,000,000 Contract lasts until 2022
• Suter, Age:34, $7,538,461 Contract lasts until 2025
• Kovalchuk, Age: 36 ,$6,250,000 Contract lasts until 2021

I think all of the second category ones are going to look really really bad soon. I guess the one good thing about the RFA price increases is that these types of long term/big money contracts for UFAs are going to be out of the question for a lot of teams.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Did you miss the site intention of killing the trade topic and starting a "this is where we are" more positive Lucic topic?

Thanked for this.

By all indications the buy out wasn't an option which turns you to the bring him back option or trade him for what you can.

At least they tacked +750K to the Oilers misery in exchange for equal savings on the new boat anchor.

And why would the buy out not be an option? They would have had to have paid $11.5M on a buy out, but are instead on the hook for $18M (cap space, not actual dollars). It could have been an ownership decision, but if they did make that call, I question their decision making.

Man this gets repetitive.

Does Neal provide speed?
Was Neal going to have a top six role and produce in Calgary?
Does Neal play a physical game and protect teammates?

Man, this gets repetitive.

Neal was a mistake. We all acknowledge that. Neal was gone, one way or another. He is irrelevant. The important thing was to address the needs of the team, not just move a bad contract for another. The team needs were speed and another finisher. You were not going to get that in a return for Neal, so instead focus on minimizing your mistake by making another. Lucic is just another mistake.

It's great that you have recognized a need for speed from the playoffs, but you'd have to turn James Neal into that on the trade market. I'm guessing that would be a tough summer, and look very much like the one that Treliving just had.

No, you didn't. You could have offloaded him for nothing and the team would have been better off. The goal with Neal was to dump the salary and not inflict further damage on the team. By making the swap of one bad contract for another you just hurt the team further. Buy the guy out and move on with minimal damage. At least you would have had another $3.8M to play with, and no Milan Lucic to worry about.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The problems in the playoffs last year were never going to be fixed by adding a single player. But there are varying interpretations of what happened against Colorado in Round One, and I am of the opinion that the biggest correction for the Flames needed to occur is psychological.

What happened to the Flames was not psychological. They got out-skated, out-scored, and just flat out out-played. Nothing psychological in that. They just didn't step their game up when they needed to. If anything, they were not prepared for the game the Avs were going to bring at them, and they never adjusted during or between games. That problem is elsewhere.

I find it impossible to believe that you do not understand unless you are simply ignoring the numerous posts which point clearly to the circumstances behind Lucic's addition. At the end of the day, Lucic's presence provides some modest cap relief, and replaces a player that had already proved to be a very expensive hole. At the end of the day it is neither a significant expectation that Lucic can be even slightly better than the player he has replaced, nor is it a small matter if it provides even a slight improvement overall.

Modest cap relief? No, it's not modest. You gain the money for a league minimum player. That is all of the cap relief you got out of the transaction. If they had bought out Neal, that would have been modest cap relief and only cost the Flames $1.9M a season, freeing up over $3M to find another player that could actually contribute in the areas where the Flames needed help.

It seems to me that someone can only be this irate about Milan Lucic if they actually expected Treliving to trade James Neal for a speedy scoring winger for whom you pine. If there is any delusion occurring in this thread, it is the insinuation that something like this was ever even possible in the first place.

Yeah, that's it. That was the expectation all the time. I fully expected Treliving to trade James Neal for Alex Ovechkin. You got me there. Any other ridiculous bull#### you want to throw into the mix as well, because I said none of what you are suggesting.

What I have said is that Milan Lucic is a crap hockey player that does not address the needs of the hockey team. Lucic can't skate and can't do anything at speed, which is a requirement to play in the current NHL. He is a bad fit for a team looking for speed and scoring. PERIOD. Nothing more to read into that. Lucic is slow and can't score, so he never should have been a target for the team in the first place. And I don't care if he was the only option out there, you make moves to address needs, not just make moves to make moves. Bringing Lucic in makes the team even slower, less skilled, and for pretty much the same money plus Reider. Yeah, we got rid of a malcontent, but at what price? We're not better, we're worse.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think all of the second category ones are going to look really really bad soon. I guess the one good thing about the RFA price increases is that these types of long term/big money contracts for UFAs are going to be out of the question for a lot of teams.

If I had two take aways it would be:

1. Lucic gets paid a little less and is a little younger then the worst contracts in the league.
2. The teams with more then one of these contracts on them are really bad.

So the implications for the Flames is, so long as they can get some utility out of Lucic its not that big of a deal that his contract is not ideal. However, they have no room for mistakes, another bad contract could sink this team for a while.

[GioforPM]

Bringing Lucic in makes the team even slower

He's faster than the guy he was traded for, IMO.

And it remains to be seen whether he's better than the spot he is filling, namely 2018-19 Neal. At this point in the season they have about the same points. Neal had an assist and a real fluky goal.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

And why would the buy out not be an option? They would have had to have paid $11.5M on a buy out, but are instead on the hook for $18M (cap space, not actual dollars). It could have been an ownership decision, but if they did make that call, I question their decision making.

I don't know it wasn't an option, but it was certainly implied.

I won't answer to the rest of your points because they were based on being able to buy Neal out, which wasn't on the table from what I gather.

If it was, yeah I would have gone that way too.

But if not it's back to keeping Neal or moving him in the only deal you can make.

Playoffs:

Team speed was certainly an issue for sure, as McKinnon is off the charts when it comes to speed. But I also saw a team very afraid to make a mistake and backing in, which is very mental in my opinion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

...By making the swap of one bad contract for another you just hurt the team further. Buy the guy out and move on with minimal damage. At least you would have had another $3.8M to play with, and no Milan Lucic to worry about...

So, I have a question about this: if the on-ice performance that Lucic provides the Flames is no worse than that of James Neal's while he was in Calgary, is the team actually worse? I think from a hockey perspective that is an impossible argument to make, and thus far Milan Lucic has looked no worse than James Neal did last year. I don't see how anyone can insist otherwise.

[djsFlames]

Neal did everything in slow motion. I couldn't believe how little agility he had for a man playing pro sports.

Lucic is definitely not as slow.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

...What I have said is that Milan Lucic is a crap hockey player that does not address the needs of the hockey team...

Right, but if the team is no worse off on the ice for it, then it also doesn't really hurt them.

Bringing Lucic in makes the team even slower, less skilled, and for pretty much the same money plus Reider. Yeah, we got rid of a malcontent, but at what price? We're not better, we're worse.

I completely disagree. The team is at worst not quite as good as the one that placed second in the League last year, but that has more to do with regression of some players to the mean after career seasons. The loss of Garnett Hathaway is a MUCH bigger loss for the Flames than James Neal. The exchange of Neal for Lucic DOES NOT have anywhere near so significant an on-ice impact. In a player-for-player swap between this year's Lucic and last year's Neal, the net result is pretty negligible.

[TheScorpion]

If the Flames beat or even lose in overtime to the Capitals tomorrow, they'll already be off to a better start than the team that finished with 107 points last year.

I'm not saying that they're automatically a better team. It's just far too early to make any concrete proclamations about much.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by New Era

Thanked for this.



And why would the buy out not be an option? They would have had to have paid $11.5M on a buy out, but are instead on the hook for $18M (cap space, not actual dollars). It could have been an ownership decision, but if they did make that call, I question their decision making.



Man, this gets repetitive.

Neal was a mistake. We all acknowledge that. Neal was gone, one way or another. He is irrelevant. The important thing was to address the needs of the team, not just move a bad contract for another. The team needs were speed and another finisher. You were not going to get that in a return for Neal, so instead focus on minimizing your mistake by making another. Lucic is just another mistake.



No, you didn't. You could have offloaded him for nothing and the team would have been better off. The goal with Neal was to dump the salary and not inflict further damage on the team. By making the swap of one bad contract for another you just hurt the team further. Buy the guy out and move on with minimal damage. At least you would have had another $3.8M to play with, and no Milan Lucic to worry about.



What happened to the Flames was not psychological. They got out-skated, out-scored, and just flat out out-played. Nothing psychological in that. They just didn't step their game up when they needed to. If anything, they were not prepared for the game the Avs were going to bring at them, and they never adjusted during or between games. That problem is elsewhere.



Modest cap relief? No, it's not modest. You gain the money for a league minimum player. That is all of the cap relief you got out of the transaction. If they had bought out Neal, that would have been modest cap relief and only cost the Flames $1.9M a season, freeing up over $3M to find another player that could actually contribute in the areas where the Flames needed help.



Yeah, that's it. That was the expectation all the time. I fully expected Treliving to trade James Neal for Alex Ovechkin. You got me there. Any other ridiculous bull#### you want to throw into the mix as well, because I said none of what you are suggesting.

What I have said is that Milan Lucic is a crap hockey player that does not address the needs of the hockey team. Lucic can't skate and can't do anything at speed, which is a requirement to play in the current NHL. He is a bad fit for a team looking for speed and scoring. PERIOD. Nothing more to read into that. Lucic is slow and can't score, so he never should have been a target for the team in the first place. And I don't care if he was the only option out there, you make moves to address needs, not just make moves to make moves. Bringing Lucic in makes the team even slower, less skilled, and for pretty much the same money plus Reider. Yeah, we got rid of a malcontent, but at what price? We're not better, we're worse.

I hated the trade at the time, hated the salary. And most of all I miss making fun of the Oilers for having one of the top 5 worst contracts in the entire league. I used to love nothing more then reading articles about how buyout proof it was. And it truly does suck that the contract is on our team now.

Yet none of us are the ones who sign his paycheck or signed off on the trade form. Lucic isn't also no where near as dirty as Marchment was and by all accounts is a good dude. So I don't really see the fault in at least attempting to like him or what he brings to the team. There's nothing any of us can do, except give him a chance and cheer him on to do good things. I don't see any problem with that. God forbid a bunch of teenagers on HF mock us for it.

Also this is the one of the few threads on the entire internet about liking Lucic. God forbid some of us actually show some optimism about the guy and cheer for a Flames' player. After all the thread name says "I like Milan Lucic".

And further, if people are going to #### all over posters for saying positive things about the Oiler's players in the E-NG thread since ''that's not the place to do it'', then people should get #### on here for crapping all over Lucic in a positive thread about him.

Make a ''I hate Milan Lucic'' thread if you really need to get it off your chest. This isn't the thread for that.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I didn't like the trade in the summer and still don't like it now. Not sure if I ever will. I remember laughing at the Oilers how they had a terrible player on an untradeable contract. Now the league is laughing at us.

I will always find a way to mock Oilers' fans. I expect much the same in return. I think you're too worried about what other people think. I've seen this pop up in a few other comments. Fans worried about saving face. Personally I never gave any credence to an Oilers' fan's opinion. I'm not about to start now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Right, but if the team is no worse off on the ice for it, then it also doesn't really hurt them.

Except the team is worse off. You're laying the breadcrumbs to follow.

I completely disagree. The team is at worst not quite as good as the one that placed second in the League last year, but that has more to do with regression of some players to the mean after career seasons.

Example one. The team needed additional supporting cast to protect from this. I think Treliving knew this and was trying, but ultimately failed to find a body to make a difference.

The loss of Garnett Hathaway is a MUCH bigger loss for the Flames than James Neal.

Example two, and this is wholeheartedly agree with. Hathaway was a very good role player and was a big contributor for his limited role. This is a loss that will be felt more than most people think. I don't think he was worth the contract he received in Washington, but he's a quality player.

The exchange of Neal for Lucic DOES NOT have anywhere near so significant an on-ice impact. In a player-for-player swap between this year's Lucic and last year's Neal, the net result is pretty negligible.

Example three. Lucic will struggle to even meet Neal's meager output last season. But that is irrelevant as the player Lucic is replacing is a guy that was scratched in the post season. Neal wasn't going to be here, so the issue is not what replaced him in trade, but is what salary could be recouped from the awful free agent signing. Any possible benefit we could have received from moving Neal and his albatross contract was greatly exceeded by the terrible contract that Treliving agreed to take on in return. Gone is the potential to have cap space to supplement the team in any realistic way. This is the potential that should have been front and center for Treliving, not trying to be square on the contract. Instead of having $1.9M in dead cap space, the Flames are now stuck with an immovable $4.5M and a roster spot being consumed. That isn't negligible.

So when you add it all up, we're likely not going to be seeing the repeat of the career years. We got worse in the role player department. Any possible cap space we could have possibly had to play with as a result of Neal's departure has already been consumed by a player that would struggle to make most rosters. Any possible hopes of finding some help without carving an additional salary out of the mix has been dashed. Deals now can't be just cap neutral, we have to start looking for buying some cap space in players we deal because of the worst contract in hockey. The results won't be negligible. Treliving has handcuffed himself and dropped the keys.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Say you had 23.2 million to spend and 4 roster spots to fill

Gaudreau + Monahan + Lindholm + Lucic = 23.2 M.

That’s a terrible argument.

I’d spend those funds on the first three players and the balance of 5 odd million on a decent player LOL.

There’s no law that there has to be a terrible contract on the team.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That’s a terrible argument.

I’d spend those funds on the first three players and the balance of 5 odd million on a decent player LOL.

There’s no law that there has to be a terrible contract on the team.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for your insight, that’s marvellous.

Obviously this is just comparing two teams’ allocation of that amount of money. Isolating one team and playing what if is not the point.

We already know Lucic’s contract isn’t great. The most wonderful part of it is that Calgary can absorb a garbage contract because they are good. Comparatively, Edmonton is no good