Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's a big maybe from me. As I said before if management wanted Neal gone yesterday then sure this deal was very likely the only option. But that's not the bone of contention for me it's people saying this was the only deal possible, full stop. And yes some have essentially said this.

I think for sure you could move Neal, the question is what is the price you are willing to add as a sweetener? In this scenario there is no add, the team got. I don't think there is any other scenario where that happens.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

You're doing the exactly the same thing when saying this deal was the only one that could have been inked.

Nice summary ...

My actual post was this

Originally Posted by Bingo

How can you know this?

To me actions help make assumptions, and the assumptions made based on this deal are ...

1) they wanted Neal gone
2) this was the only deal on the table
3) from talking to the league they didn't think any thing else was coming along

Those aren't facts, they're my inferences based on the action taken on Friday.

[Bingo]

Just noticed on CapFriendly that Lucic's contract is more complicated than you think.

He actually has two windows where he can submit teams and be traded. Given the amount of salary owed at that point, you could canvas the teams and look for fits and avoid having to protect him if he won't waive ... something I doubt is the case anyway.

CLAUSE DETAILS:
June 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 - Modified NTC: Submits a list of 8 teams he can be traded to
July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 - Modified NTC: Submits a list of 10 teams he can be traded to
CLAUSE SOURCE: CapFriendly

[868904]

There's a lot of talk about how bad Lucic's contract is.

I think the Flames owners are more likely to approve of a Lucic buyout than a Neal buyout because of the real dollars that will have to be paid.

I think owners care more about real money as opposed to the cap hit and at the end of the day, the owners are the ones who hold the real power in whether to buyout a player.

If the Flames buyout Lucic in the Summer of 2021 before the expansion draft, they will be adding about a $2 million cap hit NET for the next season when you factor in that Brouwer's $1.5 million cap hit will be off the books. Then in the year after, the cap hit gets bumped up to $4,885,000 but then after that, it's negligible at about $500,000 per year for two more years. So the second year after the buyout will hurt, but at that stage, the Flames will likely be rebuilding anyways as Johnny and Mony's contracts will be coming due.

In the Summer of 2021, Lucic can either take a buyout and get $7,833,333 or waive his NMC and get paid $9,000,000 for another two years. I guess it will come down to whether Lucic thinks he will still be able to make up the $1,166,667 as a free agent in the Summer of 2021.

[Erick Estrada]

We used to think that Flames ownership loathed buying out players but buyouts have been the norm under Treliving as the Flames have paid O'Brien (Treliving inherited), Raymond, Bouma, Murphy (part of the Lack trade), and Brouwer not to play for them.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just noticed on CapFriendly that Lucic's contract is more complicated than you think.

He actually has two windows where he can submit teams and be traded. Given the amount of salary owed at that point, you could canvas the teams and look for fits and avoid having to protect him if he won't waive ... something I doubt is the case anyway.

It's not that complicated. It's the same two year window, it just expands from eight teams to ten July 1st 2022.

So yeah, the Flames could do what you're suggesting and I'm sure a guy like Treliving will, but they're still just canvasing eight teams. Eight teams where you hope one or two have room. Either teams where one or two have room and one of those two are interested in him.

And until Calgary has it in writing that he'd waive for the expansion draft I won't be doing any mock drafts without him being protected.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Nice summary ...

My actual post was this

Did you not say the only option was to trade Neal to a hated rival? Then people say wait a minute, there could have been other options going forward. You say, how can you possibly know that can I use your crystal ball?

And at the same time are damn sure this deal was the only option. You don't see the issue here?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just noticed on CapFriendly that Lucic's contract is more complicated than you think.

He actually has two windows where he can submit teams and be traded. Given the amount of salary owed at that point, you could canvas the teams and look for fits and avoid having to protect him if he won't waive ... something I doubt is the case anyway.

June 1 has to be a typo, no?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

We used to think that Flames ownership loathed buying out players but buyouts have been the norm under Treliving as the Flames have paid O'Brien (Treliving inherited), Raymond, Bouma, Murphy (part of the Lack trade), and Brouwer not to play for them.

I don't know if I'd include Ryan Murphy there. He got bought out, but by bringing him with Lack we were able to get Carolina to retain. So Flames ownership saved just over 1M in that deal.

I think ownership has been adverse to buying out more than the last year of any deal, with Brouwer being the only exception.

I think buying out 3-4 years of a 5.75M players is an entirely different ballpark for comfort.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

June 1 has to be a typo, no?

It makes sense as a post-season, pre-draft window to open up discussions.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

Did you not say the only option was to trade Neal to a hated rival? Then people say wait a minute, there could have been other options going forward. You say, how can you possibly know that can I use your crystal ball?

And at the same time are damn sure this deal was the only option. You don't see the issue here?

Jesus do I have to repost every thing I said?

Go back and look. If I said "I assume", "I think", "in my opinion", "would point to" ... all suggest that I'm not saying there is or isn't anything, but making inferences based on behavior.

That's very different than stating other options are or would be available in certainty.

This is his comment ...

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Uggh. The point still stands. It's mid July of 2019. The situation is not so dire that you absolutely have no choice but to take this deal right now.

He's telling me it's not dire.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Edited for the point missed








(Chuckle)





Swing and a miss

Maybe you're making a joke but "How can you know this" was about the direness of the situation, not the date.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It makes sense as a post-season, pre-draft window to open up discussions.

Ohhh leading into expansion. That makes sense. Neat clause.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It makes sense as a post-season, pre-draft window to open up discussions.

Takes the biggest potential sting out of this trade.

Now you ask him to waive (guessing they already have). He says yes ... move on. He says no you then look at the exposed player differential with and without protecting Lucic, if it's substantial you get his 8 team list and see what you can do by dealing him.

If they want a first to take Lucic on (they may not as he's only owed $9M at that point, with a larger cap hit), you can pass. If it's a third it's worth it.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by 868904

I think the Flames owners are more likely to approve of a Lucic buyout than a Neal buyout because of the real dollars that will have to be paid.

I think owners care more about real money as opposed to the cap hit and at the end of the day, the owners are the ones who hold the real power in whether to buyout a player.

If the Flames buyout Lucic in the Summer of 2021 before the expansion draft, they will be adding about a $2 million cap hit NET for the next season when you factor in that Brouwer's $1.5 million cap hit will be off the books. Then in the year after, the cap hit gets bumped up to $4,885,000 but then after that, it's negligible at about $500,000 per year for two more years. So the second year after the buyout will hurt, but at that stage, the Flames will likely be rebuilding anyways as Johnny and Mony's contracts will be coming due.

In the Summer of 2021, Lucic can either take a buyout and get $7,833,333 or waive his NMC and get paid $9,000,000 for another two years. I guess it will come down to whether Lucic thinks he will still be able to make up the $1,166,667 as a free agent in the Summer of 2021.

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out what the potential actual dollars costs of everything could be here too. I think the actual dollars really does count from the perspective of the owner more so than the cap obligations, and if the owner is getting value.

From https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-faq

Signing Bonus
Signing bonuses are paid to the player regardless of a buyout. Therefore, as explained in the buyout caphit formula above, signing bonuses are excluded in the equation when determining the total buyout cost, and are included in the AAV value when determining the remaining caphit.

Signing bonuses therefore decrease the buyout caphit savings. In the case of players with significant signing bonuses, such as David Clarkson, the remaining caphit decreases minimally. Due to this, Clarkson's contract has been referred to as a buyout-proof contract.


For example, after this season Lucic would theoretically be owed 13 million dollars. 4 million next season, 5 million the following year, and 4 million in the final year. Signing bonuses are 3, 2.5, 3.

So if I'm not mistaken if the Flames were to buy him out after this season it would still cost them 11.5 million, as the only reduction they would get is the base salary of 4.5 being reduced to 3, and the bonuses still being 8.5. Albeit, 25% of that cost would be attributed to the Oilers so Flames out 10.06 million in actual cash.

Neal on the other hand had no bonuses and was all base salary. So after this season it would be 11.5 to buyout the last 3 years of his contract.

If as you note it's the final 2 years of both players deals, than as you note it's 7.8333 total for Lucic with Flames share being 6.85. Neal would be 7.67.

The real savings to them is if neither player was bought out and the Flames took on 14 millions of dollars owed vs the Oiler's 25 if both players were to play out these deals. Leads me to believe that a buyout of this magnitude was not going to be an option.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Takes the biggest potential sting out of this trade.

Now you ask him to waive (guessing they already have). He says yes ... move on. He says no you then look at the exposed player differential with and without protecting Lucic, if it's substantial you get his 8 team list and see what you can do by dealing him.

If they want a first to take Lucic on (they may not as he's only owed $9M at that point, with a larger cap hit), you can pass. If it's a third it's worth it.

I don't think anyone is immovable, it's just the costs associated with it that are ugly.

What are the chances Treliving is even still in Calgary by then? Who's to say where the Flames are at in terms of winning?

I'm not terribly concerned at all about Lucic and the expansion draft frankly, especially considering he just waived his clause once already.

It's the opportunity cost of paying a 4th line guy 5+ million when the team could desperately use that 5 million to improve the massive 2nd line hole in the lineup.

But that bed has been made.

Worst case scenario you just pay a team to take Lucic like Columbus did with Clarkson. Maybe that team isn't Seattle, but Calgary doesn't care at that point, pay whatever in the immediate term to avoid losing even just a 'decent' player.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Jesus do I have to repost every thing I said?

Go back and look. If I said "I assume", "I think", "in my opinion", "would point to" ... all suggest that I'm not saying there is or isn't anything, but making inferences based on behavior.

That's very different than stating other options are or would be available in certainty.

I've read all your recent posts more than once I'm confident I understand what you're saying at this point. You said:

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you're assuming they had other options to move Neal other than trading with a hated rival for a player that you can't buy out?

Seriously?

This whole deal says to me that this was the only trade option available and that buying out Neal wasn't a possibility from the Calgary ownership.

Those pretty easy to jump to conclusions means this isn't doubling down at all.

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's late July.

This was the only option he had. It was move Neal for Lucic, or bring Neal back. That's pretty obvious given the deal itself.

What would you do?

And this:

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Uggh. The point still stands. It's mid July of 2019. The situation is not so dire that you absolutely have no choice but to take this deal right now.

Ideally you don't want James Neal at 5.75 come this time next year either and are able to use that cap room more effectively.

Again. Any chance of moving out the 5.75(now 5.25) is now dead, way before it needed to be.

This will be my last post on the topic. You may now celebrate.

Originally Posted by Bingo

How can you know this?

To me actions help make assumptions, and the assumptions made based on this deal are ...

1) they wanted Neal gone
2) this was the only deal on the table
3) from talking to the league they didn't think any thing else was coming along

Those aren't facts, they're my inferences based on the action taken on Friday.

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I looked at my calendar.

Originally Posted by Bingo

You have a calendar that shows the exact time of year when NHL players with bad contracts need to be moved?

Wow!

Can I see it?!?!?

You seem with a high degree of confidence this was the only option, maybe maybe not. Any suggestion that there could have been other or better options in the future are met with, can I see your crystal ball?

Nothing wrong with wondering if this was the best option no need to attack anyone that thinks so. On that subject let's have a poll, do you like this deal yes/no. Maybe I'm in the vast minority that doesn't like this trade, it's possible my hatred for the Oilers is clouding my judgement, but as it stands I loath the fact we bailed the Oil out of a bad situation, never mind the dollars aspect from a morale standpoint this helps them a lot IMO.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think anyone is immovable, it's just the costs associated with it that are ugly.

What are the chances Treliving is even still in Calgary by then? Who's to say where the Flames are at in terms of winning?

I'm not terribly concerned at all about Lucic and the expansion draft frankly, especially considering he just waived his clause once already.

It's the opportunity cost of paying a 4th line guy 5+ million when the team could desperately use that 5 million to improve the massive 2nd line hole in the lineup.

But that bed has been made.

Worst case scenario you just pay a team to take Lucic like Columbus did with Clarkson. Maybe that team isn't Seattle, but Calgary doesn't care at that point, pay whatever in the immediate term to avoid losing even just a 'decent' player.

Sure but they've been picking sheets out for that bed for two years. You don't offer Reeves more money (and likely term, no idea though) last summer to play on the fourth line for $3.5M if you don't want that on your roster.

Now they have it, and it costs $5.25M instead of $3.5M

[jschick88]

Neal interview live with Kool-aid boy Stauffer coming up.

https://globalnews.ca/radio/630ched/player/#/

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

You seem with a high degree of confidence this was the only option, maybe maybe not. Any suggestion that there could have been other or better options in the future are met with, can I see your crystal ball?

Nothing wrong with wondering if this was the best option no need to attack anyone that thinks so. On that subject let's have a poll, do you like this deal yes/no. Maybe I'm in the vast minority that doesn't like this trade, it's possible my hatred for the Oilers is clouding my judgement, but as it stands I loath the fact we bailed the Oil out of a bad situation, never mind the dollars aspect from a morale standpoint this helps them a lot IMO.

We have a clear cut different view of the English language.

When a person says there WOULD be other options, or that this IS NOT dire the are stating certainty and can be questioned.

When a person says they think, or make the following assumptions they are laying out the process to which they arrive at their conclusions. Often I even state these aren't facts to not come across as someone that knows something they don't.

They are different. I think that's clear. But you are certainly welcome to believe what you wish.

But can we let this go, because a research project on searching for what I and others have been saying is a pretty clear waste of time.