Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I find it fascinating that only about 1-in-5 fans have a negative view on this deal.

I bet that if this poll had been conducted, say, the day after, that figure would be a lot bigger.

That, or because you yourself (vis-a-vis Bingo) designed these options alongside your own opinions on *why* people shouldn’t like it. Therefore those who don’t like it might feel like none of the options actually apply to them.

...Which is why a poll constructed this way doesn’t accurately reflect anything.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

That, or because you yourself (vis-a-vis Bingo) designed these options alongside your own opinions on *why* people shouldn’t like it. Therefore those who don’t like it might feel like none of the options actually apply to them.

...Which is why a poll constructed this way doesn’t accurately reflect anything.

...does that not apply both ways? The positive options similarly have accoutrements.

I'd venture a guess that most people are simply voting "like it" or "dislike it." I only came up with the options I did in the fashion of the ones that Bingo first provided. In retrospect, they might've been a bad idea, but hey, people liked them when I posted them.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

...does that not apply both ways? The positive options similarly have accoutrements.



I'd venture a guess that most people are simply voting "like it" or "dislike it." I only came up with the options I did in the fashion of the ones that Bingo first provided.

Do you think those that like it are held to the same standard of nuance and having to defend their reasoning on a Calgary Flames fan forum as those that don’t?

[TheScorpion]

Personally, I choose not to overthink a simple internet poll. This isn't a Rorschach test.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Personally, I choose not to overthink a simple internet poll. This isn't a Rorschach test.

You brought it up!

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You brought it up!

I didn't bring up the validity of each individual poll option or the argumentative nuance required to justify each potential position.

I think there are a lot of different ways to justify being in favour of or against this deal, and I admit that the poll is flawed--in both directions. Saying that, it's disingenuous to suggest that those who support this deal do so out of blind fandom and possess viewpoints devoid of much in the way of nuance. There are many reasons to love or like this deal, probably as many as (or maybe even more than) the opposite.

You shifted the topic away from the deal itself toward this meta-discussion of the poll, and now I'm confused about what's actually happening. Moving back to the topic of my original post, I wonder how much of the initial negativity towards this deal (from me included) was spawned by anti-Oilers bias? I know my original gut-reaction to this deal was, "I don't like Milan Lucic much, and his contract is super funny, so I hate it."

[cupofjoe]

Online polls can be fun but are virtually useless to extrapolate an overall opinion or reading of a general population. Have fun with the CP polls but they are highly unlikely to reflect the actual mood / perception etc of the whole CP population.

See Mom, my education came in handy......

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cupofjoe

Online polls can be fun but are virtually useless to extrapolate an overall opinion or reading of a general population. Have fun with the CP polls but they are highly unlikely to reflect the actual mood / perception etc of the whole CP population.

See Mom, my education came in handy......

The sample size is huge relative to though so the poll likely does reflect the CP population that have accounts. I suspect there isn’t really any self-selection bias in the sample vs the population.

The poll design certainly biases toward neutral because it has the closest to a factual statement as its qualifier rather than subjective statements.

I mentioned this earlier but all polls should not have the reason attached. Let the Thread be used for justification.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I didn't bring up the validity of each individual poll option or the argumentative nuance required to justify each potential position.

I think there are a lot of different ways to justify being in favour of or against this deal, and I admit that the poll is flawed--in both directions. Saying that, it's disingenuous to suggest that those who support this deal do so out of blind fandom and possess viewpoints devoid of much in the way of nuance. There are many reasons to love or like this deal, probably as many as (or maybe even more than) the opposite.

You shifted the topic away from the deal itself toward this meta-discussion of the poll, and now I'm confused about what's actually happening. Moving back to the topic of my original post, I wonder how much of the initial negativity towards this deal (from me included) was spawned by anti-Oilers bias? I know my original gut-reaction to this deal was, "I don't like Milan Lucic much, and his contract is super funny, so I hate it."

I think saying over 50% of people did not like the deal is more representative given how you prejudiced the dislike with the least correct reason. The likes are much more in line with the argumentation in the thread therefore less prejudiced.

Also your initial reaction was correct. Lucic is not a good hockey player and the contract structure sucks. You then spent a few days trying to convince yourself the team you cheer for didn’t make a bad move.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

“It was the best offer available” doesn’t stop any of the Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Phaneuf trades from being viewed as bad. They were bad when they happened, and they were bad with the power of hindsight.

Most of those deals were bad because of timing and/or Jay Feaster.

Iginla needed to be traded earlier to get good value for him. Ownership cling to competing in his waning years when Feaster should’ve told them it was time to rebuild. But Feaster was a bit clueless about that.

Bouwmeester didn’t need to be traded when he was, and again, a bad Feaster deal.

Regehr didn’t need to be traded at all. Should’ve been Sarich instead. And again, bad Feaster deal wasn’t it?

Neal had to be dumped. He had to be dumped this summer. It’s hard to win trades where you need to dump a toxic contract badly. And this is the result.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think saying over 50% of people did not like the deal is more representative given how you prejudiced the dislike with the least correct reason. The likes are much more in line with the argumentation in the thread therefore less prejudiced.

Also your initial reaction was correct. Lucic is not a good hockey player and the contract structure sucks. You then spent a few days trying to convince yourself the team you cheer for didn’t make a bad move.

I mean, learning about Lucic outpacing Neal in the majority of quantifiable statistical categories in both the defensive and offensive zones helped.

I don't blindly support every move this team makes, I'm not a sheep. I still hate the Lazar trade to this day. I'd like to think a lot of people on here are the same way. Calling your opinion on the deal "correct" is quite presumptuous.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You really don't get it? Let me help you ...

$5,058,461.

This is actually wrong. They have about 6.8-6.9 at 22 men, depending on who is in the AHL.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Well until a week ago Calgary fans had the same opinion:

A lot of Calgary fans don’t have a particularly unbiased opinion of Oilers players.

Neither the Edmonton fans nor the Calgary fans should be trusted on their opinions of Lucic

Opinions are great and all but let’s see Lucic on this ice. I sure remember last summer a lot of people wanted Treliving fired for the Lindholm/Hanifin acquisitions and I think a year later that trade looks like a slam dunk win for us.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Most of those deals were bad because of timing and/or Jay Feaster.

Iginla needed to be traded earlier to get good value for him. Ownership cling to competing in his waning years when Feaster should’ve told them it was time to rebuild. But Feaster was a bit clueless about that.

Bouwmeester didn’t need to be traded when he was, and again, a bad Feaster deal.

Regehr didn’t need to be traded at all. Should’ve been Sarich instead. And again, bad Feaster deal wasn’t it?

Neal had to be dumped. He had to be dumped this summer. It’s hard to win trades where you need to dump a toxic contract badly. And this is the result.

Is there some objective evidence supporting the notion that Neal had to be traded NOW?

Bingo clearly brings it up as an assumption, not fact. Now it seems to be cited by many supporting the deal. It’s all rather circular because the best evidence supporting that supposition is that otherwise Treliving wouldn’t have much a trade.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Opinions are great and all but let’s see Lucic on this ice.

For once we agree on something. I honestly have no idea what to expect... he has such a low bar to clear. Hell, just giving fans the impression that he's actually putting in a good effort might be enough.

I sure remember last summer a lot of people wanted Treliving fired for the Lindholm/Hanifin acquisitions and I think a year later that trade looks like a slam dunk win for us.

Dunno about fired but people didn't think it'd turn out as well as it did. I'm still baffled by what happened with Lindholm. Chemistry matters, sure, but it's the same coach he had before, and are Johnny and Monahan really that much better than Skinner and Aho (his two most common linemates the year prior)? I am still at a loss as to how a 45 point player gets to nearly a ppg. It was clearly witchcraft of some sort.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is there some objective evidence supporting the notion that Neal had to be traded NOW?

Yes, his on ice play.
The fact the coach scratched him in the most important game of the year.
After that it was obvious Neal would not be brought back. There was no fit for him on any line we tried him on. Zero chemistry with any of our players. He didn’t show nhl caliber skating or effort. He was done, done, done. Surprised me how many thought he could rebound with us when there was zero evidence of that being a possibility based on his play last year. I mean Neal was worse for us than Raymond, Brouwer, etc. Worse than two players we bought out.

How could anyone conclude he could’ve stayed? It wasn’t a possibility

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Dunno about fired but people didn't think it'd turn out as well as it did. I'm still baffled by what happened with Lindholm. Chemistry matters, sure, but it's the same coach he had before, and are Johnny and Monahan really that much better than Skinner and Aho (his two most common linemates the year prior)? I am still at a loss as to how a 45 point player gets to nearly a ppg. It was clearly witchcraft of some sort.

That’s the thing, Lindholm wasn’t a 45 point player. That’s just a label you put on him. Most players aren’t done developing by 23, it is foolish to judge them as finished products at that point and many made that mistake last summer. Lindholm was a young, developing forward with a high skill level and good grit who hadn’t realized his full potential yet. Treliving and our scouts were still high on his potential.

For the same reason some of us aren’t willing to write off Bennett as a checking line player either. He’s a young, developing forward with high skill and good grit who hasn’t reached his full potential yet.

It’s amazing what confidence can do for you. People really underrate the psychological aspect in sports. Some early success can breed confidence, which can breed more success and more confidence and then you have a snowball. If Bennett gets on a bit of a lucky roll this year watch closely and see if it snowballs into a breakout year.

[red sky]

I watched almost ever Flames game last year and there were maybe 3 games where James Neal seemed engaged and could actually pass as an NHL player.

It looked like he was just learning to play the game. Slow, terrible vision, stone hands and a shot that took forever to get off and if he did it went wide or hit the goal in the logo.

Even if he improves slightly he will still be terrible defensively and a step behind the play.

I didn't watch many Oilers games but when the Flames played them, Lucic was more noticeable for good reasons than Neal was all season. Frankly I am most surprised how bad James Neal looked last year. Excited to have Lucic as a Flame.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Barca

Eriksson can play on the bottom 6 though... he's a good 2 way forward. the issue Canuck fans have with him is production.

His defensive numbers aren't terrible (nor good to be honest) and his offence has dried up (like Lucic), but he doesn't play physical and can't provide the deterrent that Treliving has been hunting for for two years.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Why does it have to be "only viable option"?

There are other players out there with bad contracts. Buyout was a better cap option. Neal clearly is considered the more likely team to rebound by both teams (hence the sweeteners going to Calgary.

The point being is, there was no gun to his head, and this was not the only option. He has assigned some on ice value to lucid in he trade for a period of 4 years....

I couldn't be any more transparent with my thoughts.

I've always called them assumptions not facts. So no I'm not saying it's the only option, but my assumption was that the owners didn't like the buy out (Haynes article quote below seems to back that up).

The buyout-proof nature of Lucic’s signing-bonus-heavy contract has been another hot topic in social media since the trade was announced. But Treliving also shrugged off that worry. For one, he hints that’s probably two years down the road at the earliest. In general, he says buying out a contract and carrying it on the book for eight years (if buying out four years) or six years (if buying out three years) just isn’t palatable for teams — and in particular, owners.

Seems to at least support my assumption to some degree.

So the next assumption in my mind proves itself. Why would he take on Lucic and a light sweetner if there were better options out there? That doesn't make sense.

He could wait it out but clearly he thought this was it.