Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[shadowlord]

Meh, with all the new Oilers acquisitions being promised playing time with McDavid, I can't see Neal getting 2 goals even if he's healthy.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is there a rule requiring a team to play someone?

Teams can't just pretend guys are injured when they are not.

I guess they could get a doctor to declare that Neal has an ongoing injury. That being said, Neal isn't just going to go along with that, unless he wants the extra rest.

[Johnny Makarov]

Ugh. Holland just said 2-3 weeks for Neal. So prob 5-6 weeks.

Who knew the most intriguing thing for us down the stretch is if James Effing Neal can score 2 goals.

[powderjunkie]

Neal only scored in one of his last 13 games...though it happened to be a hat-trick.

I wonder if the last game of the season (CGY vs. EDM) will be meaningful for either team?

Darkest timeline: James Neal scores only one more goal (#20)...the GWG in the last game to knock the Flames out of the playoffs.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by blankall

Teams can't just pretend guys are injured when they are not.

I guess they could get a doctor to declare that Neal has an ongoing injury. That being said, Neal isn't just going to go along with that, unless he wants the extra rest.

He's not on LTIR. You could keep him out all season and tell him to go home if you wanted to.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Why wouldn't they hold him out to save a 3rd?

Because they are in a playoff race?

We can debate whether he helps the team or not. But I don't think we can debate whether the Oilers will try to ice their best team possible every night (whatever they think that is)

[Fuzz]

So what are the chances we get that 3rd round pick now? Do they pro-rate Neal's total for the season? Or did we just get robbed?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So what are the chances we get that 3rd round pick now? Do they pro-rate Neal's total for the season? Or did we just get robbed?

Chris Johnston on the radio said the chance of pro rating anything is very small.

[TheScorpion]

I don't know how it would work. Both teams have a compelling argument.

The Oilers will just point to the goal column. Neal has 19. The condition was 21. Simple as that.

But the Flames also have a solid case. This is a very unusual season and Neal very easily could have hit 21 if the season played out as expected. Both sides made the deal expecting an 82-game year. The Oilers only played 71. How is that fair?

At the end of the day, if the regular season is done, I think there might have to be some arbitration here.

[Robbob]

I think it is an easy decsion. He didn't get 21 goals on the season period. You don't prorate stats for injuries.

The only arguement that could be made is 21 goals in an 82 game season is .256 goals a game. Taking .256 over 71 games would be 18.18 goals.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think it is an easy decsion. He didn't get 21 goals on the season period. You don't prorate stats for injuries.

But that's unfair to say. Nobody's talking about what would have happened if Neal hadn't gotten injured. Injuries come with the territory of hockey.

But both sides made this deal with the expectation that it would be an 82-game season. If we'd been going into a lockout-shortened year, I'd venture that the condition might be very different.

This wasn't an 82-game season. It was a 70-game season. That complicates things considerably.

[Fuzz]

I wonder if anyone was smart enough to put this sort of contingency into the deal.

[dino7c]

If the Oilers feel that way no complaints about giving up 2 2nds for a week of AA then

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If the Oilers feel that way no complaints about giving up 2 2nds for a week of AA then

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.

[TheScorpion]

Conditions were made assuming an 82-game season

We have a 70-game season, which is 85% of what was originally agreed upon by all 31 teams

Why not scale down all the numbers in the condition to 85% of what they were originally agreed upon?

- Neal has to score at least 17.8 goals
- Lucic has to score at least 8.5 fewer goals

Neal has 19, Lucic has 8. That's a difference of 11.

Seems fair to me. But I'm not the NHL.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Conditions were made assuming an 82-game season

We have a 70-game season, which is 85% of what was originally agreed upon by all 31 teams

Why not scale down all the numbers in the condition to 85% of what they were originally agreed upon?

- Neal has to score at least 17.8 goals
- Lucic has to score at least 8.5 fewer goals

Neal has 19, Lucic has 8. That's a difference of 11.

Seems fair to me. But I'm not the NHL.

So do you do this for all the time players get injured? Or in the press box? Bonus money for ELC's?

They aren't going down that road. Extenuating circumstances this year. It is what it is. Look at all the teams that made trades at the deadline, they got hooped too.

I also imagine there are no game requirements in the conditions. So how is 82 games relevant? If they wanted games to be included it would be in there. We see those conditions all the time.

[dino7c]

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.

There's your problem

What about all the deadline trades for UFAs? Teams just lose their picks and assets?

[TheScorpion]

No you obviously don't do it for injuries or healthy scratches, those are completely different circumstances that have nothing to do with the season itself ending due to extraordinary events. Both players are currently healthy and this is a completely unique situation initiated by a very unique trade condition. It's a situation so solitary that I wouldn't be surprised to see it figured out in arbitration.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So do you do this for all the time players get injured? Or in the press box? Bonus money for ELC's?

They aren't going down that road. Extenuating circumstances this year. It is what it is. Look at all the teams that made trades at the deadline, they got hooped too.

I also imagine there are no game requirements in the conditions. So how is 82 games relevant? If they wanted games to be included it would be in there. We see those conditions all the time.

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?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

But that's unfair to say. Nobody's talking about what would have happened if Neal hadn't gotten injured. Injuries come with the territory of hockey.

But both sides made this deal with the expectation that it would be an 82-game season. If we'd been going into a lockout-shortened year, I'd venture that the condition might be very different.

This wasn't an 82-game season. It was a 70-game season. That complicates things considerably.

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.