[Signing] Flames sign James Neal (5 years, 5.75 AAV)

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t get it. Seemed like he was coming around.

And now putrid the last two games.

Getting lucky with a puck bouncing off your skate into the net isn't "coming around". This is as good as you're going to get with Neal, he isn't magically going to become a 20 goal scorer again

[CalgaryFan1988]

Never liked Neal as a player, was in the "wait and see" crowd hoping to be proven wrong.

Not sure how a GM that can be so good at RFA signings and trades, can miss so often on UFA's.

[Classic_Sniper]

That icing tonight was just pure embarrassment. It’s like he forgot how to play hockey or something. It’s as if some spectre has reached into his soul and stole his ability to play the sport. I’ve been very critical of his play this season, but that single play itself left me completely baffled. It was peewee level.

It’s sad that an invisible game tonight isn’t as bad as last night’s game where 2 soft plays actually cost the team 2 goals. Without Neal and Smith, this Flames team could honestly be right there with Tampa Bay.

[Bonded]

Is he worse than Brouwer now?

[GioforPM]

The miss tonight sure looked like a guy gripping the stick and trying too hard to pick a corner.

The icing was bad. It was a bit too old school - hold the follow through and the linesman cuts a break.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Is he worse than Brouwer now?

Tough to say.

After tonight Brouwer (a -2 on the night) has 7 grapes and 3 apples and a -10

After tonight Neal (a -1 on the night) has 4 and 4 with a -12

Considering the incremental cap hit of having Neal instead of Brouwer is $3+ million this year, I’d have a hard time making the case for Neal being the better option...and I don’t think much of Brouwer (as a player) at all.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Is he worse than Brouwer now?

His contract is.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Is he worse than Brouwer now?

I’d say he definitely is.

Brouwer wasn’t nearly this bad in his 1st season with the Flames. Guy actually had some respectable production.

- Less production
- Neal earns more $$$ and has more term
- Defensively worse
- Doesn’t kill penalties
- Not effective in any zone IMO

Just extremely frustrating and underwhelming play by Neal. He just seems to be completely out of sync with the rest of the team. It’s like everyone is jiving on the dance floor and he’s off in the corner line dancing. It’s weird. Whoever he seems to play with and it’s been everybody, nobody seems to see any improvement which is very bad since he’s the 3rd highest paid forward on the team.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

Tough to say.

After tonight Brouwer (a -2 on the night) has 7 grapes and 3 apples and a -10

In his first 11 games, Brouwer had one goal on seven shots.

In the next 8, he had five goals on 14 shots, with a 35.7% shooting percentage over that span. Nobody sustains a percentage like that – nobody. (Steven Stamkos tops all active players with a career average of 17.1%.)

In the 18 games he has played since then, Brouwer has one goal and three points, 19 shots, and a shooting percentage of 5.3%.

Brouwer is no improvement over Neal; he's a replacement-level player who had a two-week hot streak.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Getting lucky with a puck bouncing off your skate into the net isn't "coming around". This is as good as you're going to get with Neal, he isn't magically going to become a 20 goal scorer again

You don’t think his play took a sharp turn for the worse last 2 games?

I’m not saying he was playing great but he was at least engaged. He was checked out in Detroit and Boston. Peters can’t reward that kind of effort with icetime for much longer.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Jay Random;

Brouwer is no improvement over Neal; he's a replacement-level player who had a two-week hot streak.

Option A - Brouwer for 1.5 more years on 4 million per

Option B - Neal for 4.5 more years on 7 million per (incrementally) in the first few years (5.75 + 1.x for Brouwer buy-out)

You’re a GM in the league and your forced to choose either option A or option B right now. What do you do?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The miss tonight sure looked like a guy gripping the stick and trying too hard to pick a corner.

The icing was bad. It was a bit too old school - hold the follow through and the linesman cuts a break.

that was infuriating... he was like 2 steps away from the centerline... he should have known that...this is a guy that's played over a decade in the NHL - he has to know that.

I like Neal, I want him to be successful, but damn, he looked like he didn't give a damn tonight. Lazy plays, bad plays... the very least he can do is work harder, skate harder...he's not going to play himself out of it by floating around out there

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

Option A - Brouwer for 1.5 more years on 4 million per

Option B - Neal for 4.5 more years on 7 million per (incrementally) in the first few years (5.75 + 1.x for Brouwer buy-out)

You’re a GM in the league and your forced to choose either option A or option B right now. What do you do?

Looks like a bad decision by Treliving but it can’t be undone.

You have two choices:

Option A - undo the entire offseason

Option B - keep the entire offseason

Which do you choose?

[TheScorpion]

If signing Neal means we get this season, I do it again 10 times out of 10.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Looks like a bad decision by Treliving but it can’t be undone.

You have two choices:

Option A - undo the entire offseason

Option B - keep the entire offseason

Which do you choose?

The question was asked “which player is worse”.

Wasn’t I just answering the question?

Clearly, under my way of thinking Neal would be the worse player to have.

I’m very confused!

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

Option A - Brouwer for 1.5 more years on 4 million per

Option B - Neal for 4.5 more years on 7 million per (incrementally) in the first few years (5.75 + 1.x for Brouwer buy-out)

You’re a GM in the league and your forced to choose either option A or option B right now. What do you do?

Neal isn't being paid for Brouwer's buyout, nor was he signed specifically to replace Brouwer. Treliving signed him for the same reason he traded for Lindholm – because the team sucked at RW.

In any case, I was not talking about contracts. As a player on the ice, Brouwer is no improvement over Neal. Except for that two-week stretch when he scored five goals, he's been as bad or worse this year.

Not every move a GM makes pays off. And nobody, nobody in this world, knows in advance which moves are going to pay off. You pretend that you knew in advance that signing Neal wouldn't pay off – but you didn't. You just wanted the guy to fail.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If signing Neal means we get this season, I do it again 10 times out of 10.

What? Neal has been the reason for this seasons success? Are you suggesting the flames wouldn’t be having success without Neal?

You’re clearly trolling now. Neal is the reason we are tied with Toronto instead of Tampa Bay.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

What? Neal has been the reason for this seasons success? Are you suggesting the flames wouldn’t be having success without Neal?

You’re clearly trolling now. Neal is the reason we are tied with Toronto instead of Tampa Bay.

Wait isn’t that Smiths fault?

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Neal isn't being paid for Brouwer's buyout, nor was he signed specifically to replace Brouwer. Treliving signed him for the same reason he traded for Lindholm – because the team sucked at RW.

In any case, I was not talking about contracts. As a player on the ice, Brouwer is no improvement over Neal. Except for that two-week stretch when he scored five goals, he's been as bad or worse this year.

Not every move a GM makes pays off. And nobody, nobody in this world, knows in advance which moves are going to pay off. You pretend that you knew in advance that signing Neal wouldn't pay off – but you didn't. You just wanted the guy to fail.

You don’t know me so I’d thank you for now pretending to know what I’m wanting

And yes, the Flames absolutely brought out Brouwer to make room for Neal. Are you suggesting that would have signed Neal if they hadn’t brought out Brouwer?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

What? Neal has been the reason for this seasons success? Are you suggesting the flames wouldn’t be having success without Neal?

You’re clearly trolling now. Neal is the reason we are tied with Toronto instead of Tampa Bay.

Trolling? Man, oh man. I'm not happy with Neal at all, nor am I suggesting that Neal has led this team to success.

But we never know how things would've unfolded had Neal not been signed. Could things have gone better if the Flames signed someone else? Perhaps. But they could've gone worse.

All I'm saying is -- as it stands, the Flames are at the top of the West deep into the season. It's easily the best start to a season of my lifetime. So I wouldn't change much that has led to this. Are there things I would change going forward? Perhaps. But chemistry is delicate and the Flames could have very easily signed someone actually detrimental instead of just there, like Neal.

Also, if you want to pin any detriment on one player, it has to be Mike Smith, not Neal.