Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion - Page 186 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Weitz · 03-18-2020, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is obviously special circumstance...other trades are going to be modified after the fact IMO

You think teams are just gonna say ah well to all the assets they gave up at the deadline?

I don't think they will have a choice.

But that is also partly why the NHL is going to do everything in its power to finish the season in some way.

TheScorpion · 03-18-2020, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There's nothing unfair about saying 19 < 21. That's just fact. Yeah, it sucks that we won't get the extra pick. That's life. The condition wasn't a GPG ratio. It was 21 goals.

There's also nothing unfair about saying 70 < 82. Seasons haven't lasted 70 games since pre-expansion.

Weitz · 03-18-2020, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

There's also nothing unfair about saying 70 < 82. Seasons haven't lasted 70 games since pre-expansion.

Besides the whole part of there being no games played requirement.

Jiri Hrdina · 03-18-2020, 03:57 PM

Conditions are intentionally intended to be very clear.
If Neal got 21 goals and more than 11(?) goals than Lucic the Flames get a third
That didn't happen.
So they don't.
Why it didn't happen doesn't matter. As soon as you introduce interpretation into conditions it is a slippery slope.
Scorp you should know the dangerous of ambiguous conditions from the CPHL!

Fuzz · 03-18-2020, 03:58 PM

I guess the point is we don't have access to the full terms with all the fine print. We know the headline info. I assume there is fine print. Maybe there isn't.

TheScorpion · 03-18-2020, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Conditions are intentionally intended to be very clear.
If Neal got 21 goals and more than 11(?) goals than Lucic the Flames get a third
That didn't happen.
So they don't.
Why it didn't happen doesn't matter. As soon as you introduce interpretation into conditions it is a slippery slope.
Scorp you should know the dangerous of ambiguous conditions from the CPHL!

Yes I understand that side of things. Completely clear, yes.

But please carefully consider my point of view (as a Flames fan): this situation is a load of tosh.

getbak · 03-18-2020, 04:54 PM

After the last lockout, Performance Bonus thresholds were all prorated to the 48 game season. If this 2019-20 regular season is over, I'd expect the NHLPA to ask for this season's stats to be prorated for Performance Bonuses as well.

Even if they prorate stats for bonuses, it doesn't mean they will for trade conditions. I'm sure the Flames and Oilers aren't the only teams whose trades would be impacted depending on the decision to prorate or not.

Textcritic · 03-19-2020, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

AA is an RFA.

I posed the question over on HF and overwhelmingly people believe the Oilers should get away with not having to send the 3rd, but I'm really not convinced that that should be the case. The NHL approved the conditional pick. I'm curious to hear what they have to say about it if it comes to that.

What was the condition attached to the 3rd in the AA trade?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

ForeverFlameFan · 03-19-2020, 10:46 AM

It's a freaking 3rd round pick, lol.

Fuzz · 03-19-2020, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

It's a freaking 3rd round pick, lol.

Right? The Oilers should just give it to us, as they are bound to screw it up. We might at least get something out of it.

ForeverFlameFan · 03-19-2020, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Right? The Oilers should just give it to us, as they are bound to screw it up. We might at least get something out of it.

I'd understand the uproar if this was a conditional 1st round pick by the Oilers, but it isn't. This pick wasn't going to make it or break it for us. I know that a 3rd rounder could go a long way for us, but simply put the conditions were not met.

Erick Estrada · 03-19-2020, 11:53 AM

IMO it should have never been conditional in the first place.

Oling_Roachinen · 03-19-2020, 12:45 PM

If Neal had scored exactly 21 goals but got traded and ended up playing 84 games, I don't think you would be making the same argument that he scored less than a 21 goal/82 game season and therefore the Oilers don't need to give up the pick.

He didn't score 21 goals, if that's the end of the season, it sucks but it is what it is. There was nothing stopping the Flames putting in additional conditions of goals/game if the Oilers agreed. Evidently, they didn't agree or the Flames didn't think of it.

Fuzz · 03-19-2020, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If Neal had scored exactly 21 goals but got traded and ended up playing 84 games, I don't think you would be making the same argument that he scored less than a 21 goal/82 game season and therefore the Oilers don't need to give up the pick.

He didn't score 21 goals, if that's the end of the season, it sucks but it is what it is. There was nothing stopping the Flames putting in additional conditions of goals/game if the Oilers agreed. Evidently, they didn't agree or the Flames didn't think of it.

Do we know this? I assume no one has seen the actual terms, which I assume are more detailed than "Flames trade Neil for Lucic, salary retained, and a conditional 3rd"(plus the other little details we know).

SportsJunky · 03-19-2020, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

simply put the conditions were not met.

/thread

sureLoss · 03-19-2020, 03:14 PM

On TSN Frank Servalli did say there are questions on whether the league would consider pro-rating the conditions on the pick with respect to the Neal-Lucic trade:
https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/insider...amount~1925479

Also brought up compensatory picks as a possible solution to some of these conditional trades. Which I would assume that mean the Oilers get to keep their 3rd and league gives the Flames another pick.

Scroopy Noopers · 03-19-2020, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

On TSN Frank Servalli did say there are questions on whether the league would consider pro-rating the conditions on the pick with respect to the Neal-Lucic trade:
https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/insider...amount~1925479

Also brought up compensatory picks as a possible solution to some of these conditional trades. Which I would assume that mean the Oilers get to keep their 3rd and league gives the Flames another pick.

I’d prefer a 4th anyway!

blankall · 03-19-2020, 03:31 PM

Also, who says Neal would have gotten those last two goals. He hadn't scored in 13 games. He was coming off injury. The Oilers had acquired Athanasiou, who would have competed with Neal for that #1 PP spot.

TheScorpion · 03-19-2020, 03:50 PM

IMO awarding a compensatory pick is the only correct solution

You can't punish the Oilers without it looking terrible, Neal didn't score 21 plain and simple

But also... it's a pretty unfair situation from the Flames' POV, the season only went 85% of the distance that anyone expected but Neal got over 85% of the way to the conditional threshold

Rando · 03-19-2020, 04:03 PM

There are endless amount of "unfair" things due to this shutdown. All those teams that spent picks on rental potentially ending up with nothing. The league isn't going to waste one second on this stuff. The conditions weren't meet, end of story.