Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[CalgaryFan1988]

^^^ Yup, Oprah gives away nothing (all donations) and makes money off of viewing ratings for an entire season. What a kind human being (sorry for the OT).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

^^^ Yup, Oprah gives away nothing (all donations) and makes money off of viewing ratings for an entire season. What a kind human being (sorry for the OT).

It’s been like 10 years. Time to let the past be the past, brother.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If they could have bought Lucic out for that price they would have. Now they can give Neal a shot and even if he fails they are in a better place thanks to the Flames


Flames are really taking all the risk in this deal is what it keeps coming back to for me.

Unless they unload Lucic to a team trying to reach the cap floor in the next couple years I think we will wish we could buyout Lucic for 2M/year


We called him the worst contract in the league and laughed at him all year...tough to go all fanboy now but I am trying lol

I am trying to think of the longest contract that has been bought out that was not a compliance buyout? We see guys with 2 years left a lot.

Basically if they buyout Neal next year it is not that different than eating nearly 50% on Lucic’s deal as they are on the hook for 1.9M for Neal for 6 years and 750k for Lucic for another 3.

I have a feeling the Oilers will give Neal at least 2 years to see if he is truly washed up

[kyuss275]

I voted indeffernet even though i think Lucic is better for a bottom 6 role than Neal. Don't like the "neal will be better in Edmonton" chioce. He might be better in Edmonton, but he wasn't going to be better in Calgary. No way Neal was going to play top 6 in Calgary.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Polls shouldn't have opinions. Remove everything behind the coma. I may like it for reasons other than why you like it.

From a guy that puts up a lot of polls ...

If I had gone simple there would be at least one person telling me I blew it.

So much fun!

[GGG]

Poll pet peeve,

You shouldn’t put the reason for the choice it the poll. There are other reasons then wanting to give Neal a year to bounce back to dislike the deal including the most likely outcome of they are both washed and we got less contract flexibility back. You can Hate it because we let Edmonton out of a terrible contract.

If we just have Love, Like, indifferent, disklike, Hate then we can use the thread to explain reasoning rather than assuming reasoning and prejudicing the outcome of the poll.

I selected mildly dislike due to both players being washed and a Neal buyout was a better course of action.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How do we know Holland didn’t call him?

You're right ... he could have been so lazy he didn't call anyone!

[devo22]

I'm surprised people are so optimistic about this one. We've made fun of Lucic and his terrible contract for years now, yet almost half of the users who voted "love" or at least "like" taking him on. I realize Neal was a huge disappointment, but at least there was a chance that his season was an outlier. Lucic has been trending down for a long time now, I really don't see a lot of upside there. The best realistic outcome to me is that we have added a 5.25m buyout-proof grinder who can't skate. I'd rather have kept Neal to see if there was anything left, to be honest ... and heck, I'd have prefered buying him out next year to taking on Lucics contract, but maybe that's just me.

oh well, I would love to be wrong about this and eat a ton of crow over the next couple of years.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by devo22

I'm surprised people are so optimistic about this one. We've made fun of Lucic and his terrible contract for years now, yet almost half of the users who voted "love" or at least "like" taking him on. I realize Neal was a huge disappointment, but at least there was a chance that his season was an outlier. Lucic has been trending down for a long time now, I really don't see a lot of upside there. The best realistic outcome to me is that we have added a 5.25m buyout-proof grinder who can't skate. I'd rather have kept Neal to see if there was anything left, to be honest ... and heck, I'd have prefered buying him out next year to taking on Lucics contract, but maybe that's just me.

oh well, I would love to be wrong about this and eat a ton of crow over the next couple of years.

Neal was benched in the playoffs. Thier was no keeping him around for another year.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by devo22

I'm surprised people are so optimistic about this one. We've made fun of Lucic and his terrible contract for years now, yet almost half of the users who voted "love" or at least "like" taking him on. I realize Neal was a huge disappointment, but at least there was a chance that his season was an outlier. Lucic has been trending down for a long time now, I really don't see a lot of upside there. The best realistic outcome to me is that we have added a 5.25m buyout-proof grinder who can't skate. I'd rather have kept Neal to see if there was anything left, to be honest ... and heck, I'd have prefered buying him out next year to taking on Lucics contract, but maybe that's just me.

oh well, I would love to be wrong about this and eat a ton of crow over the next couple of years.

I dont know if optimism is the right choice here, I think people are more accepting of the fact that:

• We save cash
• We get rid of a player who literally gave 0 effort over 82 games and was healthy scratched in the playoffs.
• We trade an invisible top 6 winger for a bottom 6 winger who plays a hard nosed game and isn't afraid to protect his teammates which we lack.
• Both have a -10 speed rating IRL
• Neal has an entitled attitude, Lucic appears to be happy to be out of deadmonton.

At the end of the day, we traded one mans trash for another and no team really wins as of today. I think both teams are happy with what they got/got rid of and I look forward to finally having someone other than Sam stick up for our guys when teams continually take liberties on Johnny and Co.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Royle9

We save cash

yup, 500k. That's nice, but to me that doesn't upset taking on a buyout-proof boat anchor of a contract.

I get the other arguments, but still hate the trade (chose "dislike" though because I didn't like the reason given for "hate" ... I don't give a flying F how Neal does in Mulletville). But again, hope I'm wrong. Go Milan.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by devo22

yup, 500k. That's nice, but to me that doesn't upset taking on a buyout-proof boat anchor of a contract.

I get the other arguments, but still hate the trade (chose "dislike" though because I didn't like the reason given for "hate" ... I don't give a flying F how Neal does in Mulletville). But again, hope I'm wrong. Go Milan.

500k CAP money, 10M in real money IIRC.
I honestly wont be shocked to see Lucic come in and put up more points than Neal while at the same time giving us an element of toughness and size that we lack.
I didn't want Neal back, I wasn't sold on Lucic originally either and it still bugs me a bit.
But at the end of the day I think I pick wanting Lucic on this team 10/10 times because he wants to be, VS saddled with Neal's contract for 4 more years when he didn't give 2 ####s about playing on this team.

[GioforPM]

I picked like, but the cap hit savings isn't really the answer. And it's a moderate like. My reasons are:

a. Neal had played himself off the team and possibly has some off ice issues as well.
b. Last year the players produced equally, with Neal having better line-mates.
c. I'm not worried about Neal scoring 20 on the top line because those are just replacing Chiasson's goals, and I don't see Chiasson equaling that lower in the lineup.
d. If Neal doesn't score he's useless. If Lucic doesn't score he can do other things.
e. The cap hit is lower, plus the real dollars saved make Lucic more attractive if the Flames need to move him.

[Vinny01]

I voted indifferent and am I shocked it is not the runaway winner. Even more surprised is that liking it is the option that is hot on its heels.

The names are high profile and the contracts are on the bigger side but really thenOilers and flames swapped bad contracts up front and backup goalies. Edmonton picked up the 2 players that fans literally complained about the most. Mike Smith redeemed himself in the playoffs a little bit but we all remember he was terrible during the season. Neal was brutal for both he regular season and playoffs.

Flames did acquire the most hated player and worst contract on the Oilers

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I voted indifferent and am I shocked it is not the runaway winner. Even more surprised is that liking it is the option that is hot on its heels.

The names are high profile and the contracts are on the bigger side but really thenOilers and flames swapped bad contracts up front and backup goalies. Edmonton picked up the 2 players that fans literally complained about the most. Mike Smith redeemed himself in the playoffs a little bit but we all remember he was terrible during the season. Neal was brutal for both he regular season and playoffs.

Flames did acquire the most hated player and worst contract on the Oilers

I just can't pick indifferent on a Flames trade, no matter how small.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by devo22

yup, 500k. That's nice, but to me that doesn't upset taking on a buyout-proof boat anchor of a contract.

I get the other arguments, but still hate the trade (chose "dislike" though because I didn't like the reason given for "hate" ... I don't give a flying F how Neal does in Mulletville). But again, hope I'm wrong. Go Milan.

Saves $14.25MM in actual money over the life of the contract, according to CapFriendly comparison, and $500K in cap savings per year.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Saves $14.25MM in actual money over the life of the contract, according to CapFriendly comparison, and $500K in cap savings per year.

good for the owners. As a fan, that's not something I care a lot about, to be honest.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by devo22

good for the owners. As a fan, that's not something I care a lot about, to be honest.

It potentially makes Lucic more attractive if they move on, in a trade to a team that needs to make the floor but is also cheap.

ETA: That said, people always talk about teams trading to make the floor but I don't know if I've ever seen a team struggle to do make the floor.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by devo22

good for the owners. As a fan, that's not something I care a lot about, to be honest.

Not calling you out but just want to address this type of comment. People don't care because it doesn't fit their own agenda in regards to the team, but the first thing always mentioned is always "A million too much" or "he should be better for what he gets paid". And the next thing is "they will regret that because he is too old and won't be worth it in the last couple years". If we never knew what players earn would we really care?

This trade was underperforming player for underperforming player, the Flames save $500 K per year which is better for the team in the long run. And the money doesn't really matter because WE don't pay the salary, the organization does. The worst thing was when the union demanded that salaries be published so they could use them as a negotiating ploy.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Not calling you out but just want to address this type of comment. People don't care because it doesn't fit their own agenda in regards to the team, but the first thing always mentioned is always "A million too much" or "he should be better for what he gets paid". And the next thing is "they will regret that because he is too old and won't be worth it in the last couple years". If we never knew what players earn would we really care?

This trade was underperforming player for underperforming player, the Flames save $500 K per year which is better for the team in the long run. And the money doesn't really matter because WE don't pay the salary, the organization does. The worst thing was when the union demanded that salaries be published so they could use them as a negotiating ploy.

to clarify, I just meant I don't care about the owners saving actual dollars. It's not like this is a franchise with an internal cap or financial problems, so why would it matter to me as a fan? I do care about the salary cap savings, obviously.