Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sure but they've been picking sheets out for that bed for two years. You don't offer Reeves more money (and likely term, no idea though) last summer to play on the fourth line for $3.5M if you don't want that on your roster.

Now they have it, and it costs $5.25M instead of $3.5M

Well, that's a really big difference.

I also believe the rumour to be Calgary offered Reeves 5.5 over 3 years and that Las Vegas matched at 5.5 over 2 years.

Originally Posted by AC

"I can report to you that..."

Yeah, we all knew that Francis.

Reaves took what we offered over 3 years and got the same money over 2 years from Vegas.

So paying Reaves the same amount of money over 3 years as paying Lucic for 1 is a kind of a huge chasm. I mean, 5.25 or 1.83....hmm...

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nah, perfectly normal to completely separate yourself from the team for weeks in the middle of the season.

Fortunately we had Calgary media personalities asking the tough questions about it.

I can’t speak specifically to the Neal situation, but most teams prefer to remove injured players from the active player group completely. It seems very bizarre that’s teams do that, but it’s not unusual. Injured players commonly come in early, do their thing and get out before the main group get to the rink.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Jesus do I have to repost every thing I said?

But can we let this go, because a research project on searching for what I and others have been saying is a pretty clear waste of time.

???????

You suggested I go back and read what you said (or have you repost) so I did and quoted what I thought was relevant.

We have a clear cut different view of the English language.

Clearly my opinion oh sorry my English is simply not good enough.

Originally Posted by jschick88

Neal interview live with Kool-aid boy Stauffer coming up.

https://globalnews.ca/radio/630ched/player/#/

I can never get that to stream this one works for me
http://www.radio-canada-online.com/630-ched-am

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

I've read all your recent posts more than once I'm confident I understand what you're saying at this point. You said:.

Trying to play “gotchya” after a poster has already clarified their position seems pretty dumb.

Though I also believe every post should be taken with generosity of an assumed “In my opinion...” before it (except posts where fact-based measurables are being shared of course). So there’s that.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by 868904

There's a lot of talk about how bad Lucic's contract is.

I think the Flames owners are more likely to approve of a Lucic buyout than a Neal buyout because of the real dollars that will have to be paid.

I think owners care more about real money as opposed to the cap hit and at the end of the day, the owners are the ones who hold the real power in whether to buyout a player.

If the Flames buyout Lucic in the Summer of 2021 before the expansion draft, they will be adding about a $2 million cap hit NET for the next season when you factor in that Brouwer's $1.5 million cap hit will be off the books. Then in the year after, the cap hit gets bumped up to $4,885,000 but then after that, it's negligible at about $500,000 per year for two more years. So the second year after the buyout will hurt, but at that stage, the Flames will likely be rebuilding anyways as Johnny and Mony's contracts will be coming due.

In the Summer of 2021, Lucic can either take a buyout and get $7,833,333 or waive his NMC and get paid $9,000,000 for another two years. I guess it will come down to whether Lucic thinks he will still be able to make up the $1,166,667 as a free agent in the Summer of 2021.

Lucic cannot be bought out as he has a NMC.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, that's a really big difference.

I also believe the rumour to be Calgary offered Reeves 5.5 over 3 years and that Las Vegas matched at 5.5 over 2 years.



So paying Reaves the same amount of money over 3 years as paying Lucic for 1 is a kind of a huge chasm. I mean, 5.25 or 1.83....hmm...

It's a difference for sure.

But when you're lamenting $5.5M for a fourth line forward when they were prepared to pay another fourth liner around $3M for one less year than what Lucic has left it shrinks quite a bit.

5.5 - .75 for replacement

vs

5.5 - 3

The first is 7 times the value. The second 1.75 times the value.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Lucic cannot be bought out as he has a NMC.

Don't think that's true.

If it was he wouldn't have negotiated the deal that is buy out proof in the first place.

Can't be traded
Can't be expansioned
Can't be waived / demoted

I'll try and confirm though.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's a difference for sure.

But when you're lamenting $5.5M for a fourth line forward when they were prepared to pay another fourth liner around $3M for one less year than what Lucic has left it shrinks quite a bit.

5.5 - .75 for replacement

vs

5.5 - 3

The first is 7 times the value. The second 1.75 times the value.

They offered Reeves 1.8 per on a 3 year deal.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Lucic cannot be bought out as he has a NMC.

I'm pretty sure you can buy out a contract with a NMC. Lucic's is just structured so you don't save much.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

They offered Reeves 1.8 per on a 3 year deal.

I think you're right ...

so that changes my math, yes

7 times vs 3 times

Not too mention I think the Reeves contract would pretty much establish the market if they went for an equivalent today, pushing it back up to 3M

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm pretty sure you can buy out a contract with a NMC. Lucic's is just structured so you don't save much.

That's correct. The only restriction is that a NMC player can choose whether to go on unconditional waivers prior, but the buyout goes forward regardless.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Lucic cannot be bought out as he has a NMC.

This is false, a NMC just means you can't be waived prior to being bought out. Patrick Marleau and Corey Perry both had NMC's and were bought out this summer.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Lucic cannot be bought out as he has a NMC.

He 100% can be bought out but due to the bonuses in his contract there is very little cap relief in doing so

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you're right ...

so that changes my math, yes

7 times vs 3 times

Not too mention I think the Reeves contract would pretty much establish the market if they went for an equivalent today, pushing it back up to 3M

Dude.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm pretty sure you can buy out a contract with a NMC. Lucic's is just structured so you don't save much.

Of course, you are correct. But the Flames would only save a minimal amount of cap hit by doing this.

I was a bit confused by always hearing the statement his contract was "buyout proof".

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Dude.

Yes

Honestly enough with the one word answers. It doesn't actually give you superiority like you think. Just looks silly.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Of course, you are correct. But the Flames would only save a minimal amount of cap hit by doing this.

I was a bit confused by always hearing the statement his contract was "buyout proof".

I think the whole "buy-out proof" statement is a bit of misnomer, sure the cap savings are minimal in his contract years, but the cap hit after those years is minimal, I believe it drops under $500K if he was bought next summer. Where as Neal's buyout sits at $2m even after his contract years.

So a buyout of Lucic would be a short term pain, a buy out of Neal is more of long term lingering pain.

If we are up against the wall for the expansion draft Lucic can absolutely be bought out.

[zamler]

Are they gonna say anything useful on Ched? They're blubbering on about nothing.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by JTech780

I think the whole "buy-out proof" statement is a bit of misnomer, sure the cap savings are minimal in his contract years, but the cap hit after those years is minimal, I believe it drops under $500K if he was bought next summer. Where as Neal's buyout sits at $2m even after his contract years.

So a buyout of Lucic would be a short term pain, a buy out of Neal is more of long term lingering pain.

If we are up against the wall for the expansion draft Lucic can absolutely be bought out.

If he was bought out after next year, the Flames save about $1.3M in cap out of the $15.75M they are responsible for over the 6 years.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes

Honestly enough with the one word answers. It doesn't actually give you superiority like you think. Just looks silly.

Is it sillier than inventing numbers to coincide with your original argument to avoid addressing that paying a 4th line player 5.25 per is awful?

It doesn't 'change your math', it changes the entire basis of your argument.

Hathaway just signed 1.5x3

Ferland just signed for 3.5 after a 40 point season.

There's no comparable to suggest what you're saying.

The flames are overpaying their 4th line tough guy by about 3-4 million per year. You don't have to try to prove everything is great all the time.