I Like Milan Lucic

[J pold]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't give a #### about Neal. He's gone. Lock the ####ing trade thread and get over the deal. It's done. But Lucic is garbage. He is not awesome. He is complete trash that can't play in the current NHL with any level of efficacy. He is a waste of cap space and the Flames made a massive mistake bringing him in. They have better players in the minors making a lot less money. Lucic is junk.

Someone has the stones to be honest. Bang on.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't give a #### about Neal. He's gone. Lock the ####ing trade thread and get over the deal. It's done. But Lucic is garbage. He is not awesome. He is complete trash that can't play in the current NHL with any level of efficacy. He is a waste of cap space and the Flames made a massive mistake bringing him in. They have better players in the minors making a lot less money. Lucic is junk.

100% right. I think everyone wants to justify what was done, but what's apparent was Neal was dealt at his lowest point possible, and it was unnecessary to go to deal him in favour of dead weight. So the question is why did management deem Neal unreturnable to the Flames at essentially any cost? I think it really comes down to it was the coach and/or upper management did not want him back at all, when this should have been a reclamation project and then you deal him. I don't think dealing Neal was the problem. It was the cost for doing so and that was far worse. Dealing guys at their lowest because a coach or someone didn't like them has never worked out for getting a good return. There was no upside with getting Lucic. This was a bad trade from day 1 and is just as bad as it looked on that day. No worse, no less.

[Enoch Root]

I like Milan Lucic

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by fleury

100% right. I think everyone wants to justify what was done, but what's apparent was Neal was dealt at his lowest point possible, and it was unnecessary to go to deal him in favour of dead weight. So the question is why did management deem Neal unreturnable to the Flames at essentially any cost? I think it really comes down to it was the coach and/or upper management did not want him back at all, when this should have been a reclamation project and then you deal him. I don't think dealing Neal was the problem. It was the cost for doing so and that was far worse. Dealing guys at their lowest because a coach or someone didn't like them has never worked out for getting a good return. There was no upside with getting Lucic. This was a bad trade from day 1 and is just as bad as it looked on that day. No worse, no less.

No, it was clear that Neal forced a trade by making a grand total of zero effort for the entire season, sulking after it became clear that he wasn’t the best fit for either of the top 2 lines. He was obviously deliberately tanking, probably because he felt misled about what his role with the team was expected to be when he signed.

[bluejays]

Fair. Does it make it right that they sold their asset at the bottom of his value and replaced him with a larger problem? If there's a communication problem between team and the player, fix it. Give him every opportunity to show some potential than deal him. It's the player and contract that the Flames got back that's the problem. The fact that Neal is doing this well, nobody at all could have seen coming. The fact he was better than he was here isn't, and if he was in fact tanking because he was sulking, then a simple discussion to get to the root of it should have been in line with management. I'm totally against trading players at their bottom when it's not in line with their average years. Getting back slow bones at that much of a cap hit was the icing on the cake.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

No, it was clear that Neal forced a trade by making a grand total of zero effort for the entire season, sulking after it became clear that he wasn’t the best fit for either of the top 2 lines. He was obviously deliberately tanking, probably because he felt misled about what his role with the team was expected to be when he signed.

Sure. Neal was terrible. Don’t understand why that makes trading for a terrible player on a worse contract an acceptable solution

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by J pold

The amount this board wants to Rationalize having such a terrible player in the lineup is sad. The rest of the league is rightly laughing at this trade. We should be collectively embarrased.

Hilarious. With whom are you including yourself for this ‘we’?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Sure. Neal was terrible. Don’t understand why that makes trading for a terrible player on a worse contract an acceptable solution

My point is that continuing to have him in the same position would have yielded the same results. His bounce back year would not have happened if he had stayed, and, if anything, the situation would likely have grown progressively more toxic. Treliving traded for Lucic because that was the best offer on the board, which isn’t saying much.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

No, it was clear that Neal forced a trade by making a grand total of zero effort for the entire season, sulking after it became clear that he wasn’t the best fit for either of the top 2 lines. He was obviously deliberately tanking, probably because he felt misled about what his role with the team was expected to be when he signed.

Sorry but this is total homer bunk. The flames botched this at every level from scouting to departure. If Neal is the whiny sulk you make him out to be than treliving is the biggest fool out there for giving Neal 25 million.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Corral

Sorry but this is total homer bunk. The flames botched this at every level from scouting to departure. If Neal is the whiny sulk you make him out to be than treliving is the biggest fool out there for giving Neal 25 million.

Sorry but that is even worse, and bizarre in light of this year’s results.

Neal has the ability to score in the NHL, but decided for some reason that he didn’t want to expend any effort for the Calgary team.

How should Treliving be expected to predict this?

When you pay for many consecutive years of 20 goals in varying circumstances, why should he think his circumstances are so different, and unfavourable, that Neal should just flat out #### the bed?

Now if you are saying Peters is bad, say what you have to say

[Macindoc]

Did you watch him last year? Did you see his interactions with the coach?

The problem is in part how the forward lines are constructed. Lindholm ended up being a great fit on the top line. The 2nd line was s more of a checking line, so Neal was not a fit there. And he had absolutely no interest in being on the 3rd line. He skated with no urgency, had a nonexistent back check, and whenever he got the puck he either turned it over or took a weak shot at the goaltender’s chest. There were several mistakes made along the way, including a failure by Treliving to properly project Neal’s place in the lineup, a failure of Peters to try Lindholm at 2C and to give Neil more of a shot at the top line, and a failure of Neal to give a crap about the team and give an honest effort. It’s amazing what opportunity and an honest effort have done for Neal in Edmonton.

It’s my opinion watching Neal then and now that after not getting the opportunity he was expecting, Neal likely demanded a trade. When he was told no, his level of play deteriorated (either intentionally or as a result of the distraction) to the point that he was a liability every time he was on the ice.

Was the trade a huge success for the Oilers? Early results certainly suggest so. But I believe the status quo would have been an untenable situation for both parties, likely becoming progressively more toxic to the point that it became a huge distraction for the team.

I do wonder if we gave Peters too much credit for the Flames’ regular season success last year. Carolina certainly seems to have improved since his departure, in spite of losing a number of talented players.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Did you watch him last year? Did you see his interactions with the coach?

The problem is in part how the forward lines are constructed. Lindholm ended up being a great fit on the top line. The 2nd line was s more of a checking line, so Neal was not a fit there. And he had absolutely no interest in being on the 3rd line. He skated with no urgency, had a nonexistent back check, and whenever he got the puck he either turned it over or took a weak shot at the goaltender’s chest. There were several mistakes made along the way, including a failure by Treliving to properly project Neal’s place in the lineup, a failure of Peters to try Lindholm at 2C and to give Neil more of a shot at the top line, and a failure of Neal to give a crap about the team and give an honest effort. It’s amazing what opportunity and an honest effort have done for Neal in Edmonton.

It’s my opinion watching Neal then and now that after not getting the opportunity he was expecting, Neal likely demanded a trade. When he was told no, his level of play deteriorated (either intentionally or as a result of the distraction) to the point that he was a liability every time he was on the ice.

Was the trade a huge success for the Oilers? Early results certainly suggest so. But I believe the status quo would have been an untenable situation for both parties, likely becoming progressively more toxic to the point that it became a huge distraction for the team.

I do wonder if we gave Peters too much credit for the Flames’ regular season success last year. Carolina certainly seems to have improved since his departure, in spite of losing a number of talented players.

I wonder this to. Peters had no answer in the PO for the Avs. Hopefully he has some answers for whats going on now. If its a case of the Flames have been "figured out" as some are saying then he needs to come up with a new game plan. I can't think of a time where he has clearly out coached anyone yet. Maybe we are giving him too much credit.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Sure. Neal was terrible. Don’t understand why that makes trading for a terrible player on a worse contract an acceptable solution

Because the Flames saved a bit of cap and many millions of dollars. The actual players involved were largely irrelevant to Calgary, although Lucic was likely a better fit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Robo

Why come into a thread that is trying to spread some positivity and spew this

Because there is a not so fine line between truth and delusion. It appears there are way too many that are willing to eschew the truth in favor of some delusion where a player we rightly mocked for several years, as he performed abysmally up the road in Shelbyville, is now a good addition to the team. Milan Lucic has been garbage for years, and we had been merciless in our rightful criticism and mocking of the Oilers for supporting him and the worst contract in hockey. There is nothing positive to having Lucic on the team. Nothing.

I get that people want to be big supporters of the team. They conflate being a fan with accepting all the warts of the team and ignoring the bad moves the team makes. I think we as a fan base are better than that. We don't have to swallow our pride and back garbage players and celebrate stupidity. Just like when Bryan Marchment was brought into the Flames family I cold never accept nor stomach the sight of the player in our uniform. It was a bad move, and it was an embarrassment to the organization . The same extends to the acquisition of Milan Lucic. He's a terrible player and no amount of burying the collective head in the sand is going to change that. You may not like hearing that, but it's the truth.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Dube

I like turtles

I like tortoises.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

I do wonder if we gave Peters too much credit for the Flames’ regular season success last year. .

I don't think so, as he made a lot of successful in-game and post-game adjustments in the regular season up to around the all star break - but Peters' coaching style changed later in the season once the lines became set in stone and Fantenberg was acquired - and he was indeed outcoached in the playoffs.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by fleury

Fair. Does it make it right that they sold their asset at the bottom of his value and replaced him with a larger problem? If there's a communication problem between team and the player, fix it. Give him every opportunity to show some potential than deal him. It's the player and contract that the Flames got back that's the problem. The fact that Neal is doing this well, nobody at all could have seen coming. The fact he was better than he was here isn't, and if he was in fact tanking because he was sulking, then a simple discussion to get to the root of it should have been in line with management. I'm totally against trading players at their bottom when it's not in line with their average years. Getting back slow bones at that much of a cap hit was the icing on the cake.

No, Neal is/was the larger problem on the Flames. His value was never going to get higher here. He had already played his way off the team.

I don’t understand the fans who can’t recognize that Neal played himself off the team last year. All year they tried to get his value back. They fed him ice time he didn’t deserve trying to get him going and get his value back. They wasted a whole season on Neal and his godawful play. He was NEVER going to get another chance to redeem himself after an entire season of failing to show up.

He HAD to be dealt this summer. And obviously it had to be for another bad contract. That is the reality of the situation. A reality some people seem to be in denial of. You are an example of this.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Sure. Neal was terrible. Don’t understand why that makes trading for a terrible player on a worse contract an acceptable solution

1. Lucic isn’t terrible
2. With the salary retention Neal’s is the worse contract
3. With Neal quitting on us last season he HAD to be dealt and he he had to be dealt for another bad contract

You seem a bit out of touch with the reality of the situation. Your hyperbole only serves to weaken your argument.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by fleury

Fair. Does it make it right that they sold their asset at the bottom of his value and replaced him with a larger problem? If there's a communication problem between team and the player, fix it. Give him every opportunity to show some potential than deal him. It's the player and contract that the Flames got back that's the problem. The fact that Neal is doing this well, nobody at all could have seen coming. The fact he was better than he was here isn't, and if he was in fact tanking because he was sulking, then a simple discussion to get to the root of it should have been in line with management. I'm totally against trading players at their bottom when it's not in line with their average years. Getting back slow bones at that much of a cap hit was the icing on the cake.

Yeah sure. The Flames just said “we aren’t going to try and fix things with Neal at all.” And then traded him. You actually think there weren’t a lot of efforts at communication, working with the player, etc?

As for a “bigger problem”, I think it’s way to soon to decide that, but Neal as he was versus Lucic in Calgary isn’t much of a debate IMO. Lucic is better.

[GioforPM]

I see, BTW, this has been hijacked into a Neal thread. I tried.