Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Niemo]

After July 1st 2020 (or whenever Lucic's 3MM bonus is due), Lucic is only due 10MM is actual cash over the last 3 years of his contract (3.33MM/year).

With the Oilers retaining 12.5%, that's 8.75MM over 3 years or 2.91MM/year for 3.

For a low budget team, this is palatable since they don't care too much about the cap hit. This means that the Flames pay 5.25MM in real dollars for Lucic's services for 1 year if they manage to trade him next offseason.

They can retain a bit more to lessen the sweetener required, but it's not impossible. I'd argue that minus the NMC, it's a much easier contract to move over Neal's (barring a bounce back miracle).

Every season thereafter, Lucic's deal becomes more palatable (and the protection on his NMC, NTC becomes less restricted). As long as he waives his NMC for the expansion draft 2 years from now, it's not horrible.

[Monahammer]

The media know very little- last year in the offseason they threw some shade at our Dougie trade and predicted the oilers were going to win the division, so I am not sure we should put much stock into their assessment of this trade.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... I thought you could only retain 50% of the total contract value (combined). So the Flames can only retain 37.5% of the AAV (2.25M) if they were to trade Lucic on. Is that incorrect?

That was my understanding too, but there was a trade earlier this year where a team retained 50% of their portion of a contract on which some salary had previously been retained.

...

Found it: Carl Hagelin. Pittsburgh retained $250,000 of his $4 million cap hit when trading him to LA, then the Kings retained a full 50% of their $3.75 million cap hit when trading him to Washington.

The total retained by Pittsburgh and LA was $2.125 million of $4 million (53.125%).

[JTech780]

https://www.garyrobertshockey.com/pages/testimonials

For those who think Neal is going to turn it around because he is training with Gary Roberts, according to this he has been training with Roberts since he was 15 years old, what is going to change now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm reconsidering a James Neal buy out as an option in light of some of the contracts that have been signed in the last month.

If the Flames had bought out Neal and Stone during the June buyout window, their combined amount that would count against Calgary's cap would be just under 3.1 per. That would save the Flames just under 6.2 per year in cap space this year.

Sure, the combined cap hits of Brouwer, Stone and Neal would be about 4.5 million for this year and next year, but you've partially plugged a leak and you didn't have to work anything out with anyone else and all it really costs you is cash and a bit of budget space.

But your opportunity to improve the team I think is greater while at the same time removing some distractions.

I dunno. With Neal the hope was maybe he'll be a goal scoring top 9 player, but adding Lucic is like actually committing to paying a 4th line guy 3-4 times more than he should be.

Now you've potentially made your chief rival stronger and only marginally, maybe, upgraded your situation.

It just stinks.

How so?

If he isn't playing with McDavid, how impactful ishe going to be? If he is playing with Mcdavid, the Oilers are going nowhere.

Personally, I hope he plays with McDavid because it means they aren't developing someone else who might actually be able to help them medium term.

[868904]

There are three issues with this trade that has generated so much hate:

1) Expectations - there were the rumours that the Oilers were willing to include Poolparty in any Lucic trade as a sweetener; therefore, anything less is considered below market. HOWEVER, you only get Poolparty IF you take on the entire Lucic contract. Because the Flames were shipping their own bad contract back, you should not have expected Poolparty as a sweetener.

2) No good Oilers - it's the Oilers so Flames fans see everything with a bias view. There can be nothing good about the Oilers and therefore if we make a trade with them and it is not an overwelming and one sided win for us, it is a bad trade. When this rumoured swap first came around, I thought I'd do it one for one. That's what I think of Neal.

3) Toughness divide - there is a huge divide on this board between those who think toughness is important and those who do not. There have been many arguments and discussion threads about the importance of toughness. As such, those who think toughness is not necessary will obviously ascribe very little value to Lucic and those who do think toughness is important, will think more of Lucic. Cleary, Flames management believes that toughness is important as they have always tried to acquire it. Actual NHL players also always say they think it's important, and from this trade alone, you have guys like Iggy (who himself didn't need protection, but still valued it anyways) and Giordano saying how important it is.

Even if Neal scores 25 goals and 50 points next year, I'd still take Lucic if he can get to 30 points, because I value the other things that he brings over Neal.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by 868904

There are three issues with this trade that has generated so much hate:

1) Expectations - there were the rumours that the Oilers were willing to include Poolparty in any Lucic trade as a sweetener; therefore, anything less is considered below market. HOWEVER, you only get Poolparty IF you take on the entire Lucic contract. Because the Flames were shipping their own bad contract back, you should not have expected Poolparty as a sweetener.

2) No good Oilers - it's the Oilers so Flames fans see everything with a bias view. There can be nothing good about the Oilers and therefore if we make a trade with them and it is not an overwelming and one sided win for us, it is a bad trade. When this rumoured swap first came around, I thought I'd do it one for one. That's what I think of Neal.

3) Toughness divide - there is a huge divide on this board between those who think toughness is important and those who do not. There have been many arguments and discussion threads about the importance of toughness. As such, those who think toughness is not necessary will obviously ascribe very little value to Lucic and those who do think toughness is important, will think more of Lucic. Cleary, Flames management believes that toughness is important as they have always tried to acquire it. Actual NHL players also always say they think it's important, and from this trade alone, you have guys like Iggy (who himself didn't need protection, but still valued it anyways) and Giordano saying how important it is.

Even if Neal scores 25 goals and 50 points next year, I'd still take Lucic if he can get to 30 points, because I value the other things that he brings over Neal.

All good points. The whole thing is just cutting losses.

I’m divided on toughness myself. It’s one thing in the regular season & different in the playoffs. They must be hoping more physical toughness breeds & reciprocates mental toughness.

The one thing about having someone like Lucic in the lineup is that increasing his utilization based on his efficacy can force a team to alter their game plan. That’s a huge thing to have in the playoffs when the game changes.

My hope is that they tell Gaudreau to be stoic in the face of adversity & let Lucic fight as many of his battles as he can.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If the choice is to collect my $9M in Arizona vs a 1 year 1M deal wherever, I'd take the desert. Dude has his championship.

Depends which cap floor team. Arizona likely won’t be one for long.

He would lose less than $1.2M on a buyout just before expansion.

He can essentially get his money and pick his destination.

His contract is structured to make a buyout something that is pretty favourable to him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[monkeyman]

I am just throwing this out to be on the record. I think in two years this move will be looked at as a coup for BT and the Flames. I think Lucic is exactly the type of player this team needs and the Oilers are paying us 1.5 million dollars a year to fill it(750 annually+3million paid bonus over 4 yrs). I think in two years Neal will be out of Edmonton.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You are assuming that the Flames owners would approve of that many millions being thrown away.

I assume if that could have been authorized, it would have been done.

The Flames just made a trade that many (initially) considered questionable at best and saved about $10M in real dollars in doing so.

I doubt they were going to pay $15M for Neal to go away.

Yep

And Haynes article pretty much lays it out.

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.

[Corral]

Hard to see any positives on this deal for the Flames. Head scratcher. If you want to just get rid of James Neal, than do it and bring in some young brute to patrol the wings on a minimum salary. I don't buy the argument that there wasn't a deal out there for Neal whereby the Flames pretty much just give away a perennial 20 goal scorer for a pick or two.



Concerning that his worst NHL year was here. Its easy to blame it all on him, but that is unlikely to be the whole story.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You are assuming that the Flames owners would approve of that many millions being thrown away.

I assume if that could have been authorized, it would have been done.

The Flames just made a trade that many (initially) considered questionable at best and saved about $10M in real dollars in doing so.

I doubt they were going to pay $15M for Neal to go away.

Definitely.

Carolina just paid about 4 million bucks for a 1st rounder.

Different priorities, I guess.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Corral

Hard to see any positives on this deal for the Flames. Head scratcher. If you want to just get rid of James Neal, than do it and bring in some young brute to patrol the wings on a minimum salary. I don't buy the argument that there wasn't a deal out there for Neal whereby the Flames pretty much just give away a perennial 20 goal scorer for a pick or two.



Concerning that his worst NHL year was here. Its easy to blame it all on him, but that is unlikely to be the whole story.

Without having a serious rebound, no one was going to treat Neal like a "perennial 20 goal scorer". He most certainly had a negative value. Marleau had 16 goals and 37 points. The Leafs had to pay a 1st to get rid of him, and Marleau only had one year left on his contract. Marleau was coming off three 25+ goal seasons in a row prior to last year.

The only way the Flames were getting out of Neal's contract was by buyout or getting back an equally bad contract. That being said, the Flames did get back a contract that could not be bought out. That's the only reason I see this being bad.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Corral

Hard to see any positives on this deal for the Flames. Head scratcher. If you want to just get rid of James Neal, than do it and bring in some young brute to patrol the wings on a minimum salary. I don't buy the argument that there wasn't a deal out there for Neal whereby the Flames pretty much just give away a perennial 20 goal scorer for a pick or two.



Concerning that his worst NHL year was here. Its easy to blame it all on him, but that is unlikely to be the whole story.

It’s pretty simple.

Paying Neal to play for 4 years would have cost 23 million
Paying Lucic to play will cost 13 million real dollars
That right there saves the owners 10 million real dollars.

Yeah, the cap hit is 5.25 and that’s not ideal, but in terms of real dollars? Not so bad.

Buying out James Neal would cost 15.3 million dollars real cash and an 8 year cap hit of 1.93 M.
(It is cheaper to pay Lucic for 4 years than it is to pay Neal to go away!)

If you did that, the difference between Lucic’s 5.25 cap hit and Neal’s 1.9 sunk cap hit is about 3.3 million

So the question could be asked like this.

Suppose the Flames bought out James Neal.
If you could pick up a player for 3.3 M, who would you get?
If you could get Lucic for 4 years at a 3.3 M cap hit, would you consider it?

(Never mind the fact that if you bought out Neal, you are still on the hook for 1.9 for 4 years after this 4 year term)

If I am the owners, I sure as heck am not putting Treliving on the hot seat.

James Neal declared by his action that he didn’t give a crap, and ran himself out of town. Good riddance.

The more I think about this deal, it is pretty shrewd by BT.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by Corral

Hard to see any positives on this deal for the Flames. Head scratcher. If you want to just get rid of James Neal, than do it and bring in some young brute to patrol the wings on a minimum salary. I don't buy the argument that there wasn't a deal out there for Neal whereby the Flames pretty much just give away a perennial 20 goal scorer for a pick or two.



Concerning that his worst NHL year was here. Its easy to blame it all on him, but that is unlikely to be the whole story.

Did you watch him play? I find it amazing that he ever scored 20 goals. If Oilers fans think Lucic was, wait till they get a load of James Neal, he made Lucic look like Mike Gartner out there. The training excuse is lame, especially when you factor in that he has been training with Roberts since he was 15. The whole he needs to play with skilled players to score goals, well yeah him 99% of the players in the league. Even when he is playing in top 6 he puts up 20 goals and 40 points, that's not special, Hathway put up 11 goals playing on the 4th line with 4th line players, he could put up James Neal numbers playing the top 6.

Sorry for the rant and it wasn't 100% directed at one person just tired of every body worrying that James Neal is going to be this star player playing in Edmonton when he has been trending in the wrong direction for a long time.

The guy lives off the reputation of being an elite goal scorer when he hasn't been that for a quite some time now.

I am thrilled that Neal is gone, is Lucic the ideal replacement? No, but he is better than Neal.

[Erick Estrada]

Lots of mental gymnastics going on in this thread. It will be interesting to see how this thread ages when we get into the season. I can't be the only person that watched Oilers games last season. I recall plenty of times laughing at my TV watching him struggle to make the simplest of passes. I know others saw how bad he was because I frequent the Oilers are No Good thread. I'm highly skeptical that by next season's end opinions will be the same as they are today.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Lots of mental gymnastics going on in this thread. It will be interesting to see how this thread ages when we get into the season. I can't be the only person that watched Oilers games last season. I recall plenty of times laughing at my TV watching him struggle to make the simplest of passes. I know others saw how bad he was because I frequent the Oilers are No Good thread. I'm highly skeptical that by next season's end opinions will be the same as they are today.

Mental gymnastics? Let’s ask you this.

Do you really think Brad Treliving did this deal and did not work through the particulars I wrote in my last post?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I am thrilled that Neal is gone, is Lucic the ideal replacement? No, but he is better than Neal.

They are both crap. Suggesting one is better than the other is like suggesting one terminal disease is better than the next. They are both bad and not a player or salary you want your hockey team to be saddled. This deal is brutal I’m the Flames are still saddled with a grossly over-paid and massively under-performing player. It’s a deal with no upside for the Flames.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Mental gymnastics? Let’s ask you this.

Do you really think Brad Treliving did this deal and did not work through the particulars I wrote in my last post?

No offense but I didn't read your last post as I've had my fill of reading fans trying really, really, hard to make the best of this. I heard the 960 guys try to put a positive spin on it today as well as Kent Wilson's story at the Athletic. That's fine and all but I firmly remain a skeptic that this works out for the Flames and I'm entitled to that opinion.

[JJolg]

His hit on Gio is more positive than anything i can think Neal did all season.