Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

You don’t think calling it “one of the darkest days in franchise history’ is being over the top? You’re usually pretty levelheaded, but you’ve lost your mind on this one.

Yes, Lucic has a terrible contract. But so did Neal! You seem to be discounting the fact that Neal has one of the worst contracts in the league as well. With this deal, the Flames added toughness, got a bit of cap space back and got rid of Neal.

The oilers didn’t get better, they’re probably about the same, but with less cap space. The Flames got tougher and gained a bit of space. This was a doofus for doofus deal that barely moved the needle for either team. Certainly not worth losing your mind over like you have for the last 3 days.

No I dont.

This has all the earmarks of this being worse next year than this one. Then again the following year than next.

And again...Im losing my mind because I am looking at this differently than you?

Great.

Im out.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im not advocating that bringing back Neal was the way to go. At all.

i am suggesting that bringing in a guy that cant play any more and with the worst possibly structured contract to get out from under is an even worse way to go. Again, doubling down on the mistake in the first place. It smacks of a desperate GM trying to cover himself.

Obviously there was a rift bad enough between Neal/peters or Neal/other guys in the room, he had to go.

A buy out would have been preferable than this "solution" IMO. Even better a full 50% retained on Neal for the duration of his contract to a team like Ottawa for 3rd would have been better. Whatever the case....this is the worst possible way to go IMO.

Its apparent many don't share that point of view...great. I hope they are right and I hope I am dead wrong. I have merely stated with data and mosreso the old eyeball test, that its very unlikely this plays out any other way than being a debacle for the club. Maybe I am overstating it, but I expected this team to get better. For me, this does no such thing. I think it sends things backwards to be honest, and now with no real way out of it for at least 3 years and much more likely...4.

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.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im out.

If only.

[bubbsy]

I wonder if the flames make this trade if the kadri deal happened.

Seems like quite a distant plan b to try to add some "truculence".

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yet before the trade, 95% or more of CP would have said that Lucic was much, much worse.

What a difference a day makes.

Now I get why this is the case, but posters (of all teams) needs to understand that they are often "homers" in judging such matters.

What makes them not now being "homers" in stating that Lucic is now the better player?

And I'm not intending to single you out, I have no idea what your previous opinion was.

10 days ago i posted this:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think if you removed contracts completely a d just looked 1 for 1 at Neal or Lucic, Tre/the flames would pick Lucic 8 or 9 times out of 10, going forward.

So the question then becomes, how do you square the contract situation?

I have to believe that with the loss of hathaway, Trelivings team building philosophy and the way they went out in the playoffs make a lucic to Calgary scenario actually pretty attractive to the flames...IF the flames can convince lucic to waive his protection for the expansion draft.

Even better if they can get the oilers to retain salary.

Neal for lucic might be the only way to move on from Neal and the flames may think that's worth the gamble, because at least lucic gives you something.

[zamler]

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.

So a deal with Edmonton was the only option? Zero choice? If that's true then Treliving is one horrible manager for getting himself into a terrible bind in the first place. I don't believe this trade was the only option unless a deal had to be done right away.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by transplant99;7166229i am suggesting that bringing in a guy that cant play any more and with the worst possibly structured contract to get out from under is an even worse way to go. Again, [B

doubling down on the mistake[/B] in the first place. It smacks of a desperate GM trying to cover himself.

You've characterized the trade twice this way. If the Flames were at -N before (negative Neal, by whatever measurement) there was no way they could break even. Just as there's no way they're at -2N now. Maybe your expectations for fixing the Neal situation were off.

It's trading one problem for another, and there are arguably legitimate reasons why it might be important to rid the roster of Neal. If, as Bingo suggests in his article, that a buyout was extremely unlikely, then nothing has been lost be swapping out for a buyout proof player.

To me it comes down to the difference between having Neal, or Lucic, on the team. Plus or minus, it seems like the difference is relatively small. I think, though, that given where either would play (bottom six), it seems more likely we'll get a bit more value out of Lucic. But, whatever this difference is, and I think it's slight, it's hardly "crippling".

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No I dont.

This has all the earmarks of this being worse next year than this one. Then again the following year than next.

And again...Im losing my mind because I am looking at this differently than you?

Great.

Im out.

I think you're losing your mind based on the tone and hyperbole in your posts.

Last year's best team in the west traded a 19 point guy for a 20 point guy, got a fair bit tougher (an area of need), and saved 500K in cap space in each of the next 4 years. That's it.

No one is calling this a home run for the Flames, but it stands a chance of being slightly positive.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by zamler

So a deal with Edmonton was the only option? Zero choice? If that's true then Treliving is one horrible manager for getting himself into a terrible bind in the first place. I don't believe this trade was the only option unless a deal had to be done right away.

Yeah, Tre screwed up by signing Neal but who else was going to take him. The only options were buy out or hope he bounces back. Unless Peter's was willing to give him lots of ice time, I think the chances of that on the Flames were minimal.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No I dont.

This has all the earmarks of this being worse next year than this one. Then again the following year than next.

And again...Im losing my mind because I am looking at this differently than you?

Great.

Im out.

Says we shouldn’t use measurable advanced stats to say a player might work out.

Uses loose, subjective, historical “earmarks” without context to suggest a player is locked into a trend.

Bye Felicia.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

So a deal with Edmonton was the only option? Zero choice? If that's true then Treliving is one horrible manager for getting himself into a terrible bind in the first place. I don't believe this trade was the only option unless a deal had to be done right away.

Look around the league.

I'd bet 24/31 teams have a contract they wish they hadn't signed. The other 7 finally just got theirs off the books.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, Tre screwed up by signing Neal but who else was going to take him. The only options were buy out or hope he bounces back. Unless Peter's was willing to give him lots of ice time, I think the chances of that on the Flames were minimal.

That's all good but don't bail out your biggest rival. This deal seems like it was rushed. Now to be clear this is not a catastrophe for the team, the optics are beyond bad but it doesn't hurt the team at all, at worst Lucic is a bust which is a net zero kinda thing since Neal was terrible.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's all good but don't bail out your biggest rival. This deal seems like it was rushed. Now to be clear this is not a catastrophe for the team, the optics are beyond bad but it doesn't hurt the team at all, at worst Lucic is a bust which is a net zero kinda thing since Neal was terrible.

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?

[zamler]

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.

I don't see how you can know this.

What would you do?

Lucic for Neal would be at the top of my not to do list.

[Strange Brew]

We have no idea what his options were in trading Neal. How much of a sweetener would it take or what bad contracts would he have had to take back.

I think Flash may be right that they tried to push him into the Stone deal and it was going to cost the mother lode of draft picks and prospects.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's all good but don't bail out your biggest rival. This deal seems like it was rushed. Now to be clear this is not a catastrophe for the team, the optics are beyond bad but it doesn't hurt the team at all, at worst Lucic is a bust which is a net zero kinda thing since Neal was terrible.

They didn't really bail out the oilers though. The Flames took 87.5% of the oiler's boat anchor and gave them 100% of their own.

Even if the oilers buyout Neal next summer, then they have 2 Million more in dead cap space for the next 6 years (the entirety of McJebus's contract). Along with the 750K they're paying Lucic to play for the Flames.

[Flash Walken]

I think adding Lucic is a better option than the following:

1) coming back with Neal next year
2) retaining 50% and adding considerable draft pick or prospect value to trade him
3) adding twice as much value as the above scenario to trade him without salary retention
4) a buyout that counts for 8 friggin years against the cap
5) trading Neal for Loui Eriksson.

[zamler]

I'd like to see a poll, maybe I'm out to lunch thinking this is a terrible deal.

[woob]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I hope this is OK with you.

Totally ok! Where else can people post nonsensical opinions if not on the number one fan forum for our team? Well that and maybe Twitter. Definitely Eric Francis’s Twitter. Do you have a Twitter account? I’d totally follow you. Keep it coming!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't see how you can know this.

Lucic for Neal would be at the top of my not to do list.

When Thelma and Louise drove off the cliff when pursued by state troopers I think we can assume they were down to two options.

1) stop and get arrested
2) end life in a dramatic way

When Treliving acquires Lucic from the Oilers for Neal and limited sweetners?

Same thing.

1) keep Neal
2) do the Edmonton deal