Anonymous poll of NHL agents

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get the Milan Lucic contract is terrible debate, its not a good contract by any stretch.


But at the end of the day, there were underlyings that made him a effective add on to the lineup.


In his last 20 games he scored 4 goals and 6 assists which is a 16 goal and 40 point clip. He was a -5 which isn't good at all over a 80 game pace. But iirc correctly he was pretty much a bottom 6 guy, and I could love with a 40 point guy in the bottom 6. I also think he was viewed pretty positively in the room. He threw 69 hits in his last 20 games. There was also a definately reduction in other teams taking liberties with the Flames last year.


His contract isn't great, but I would certainly take him over Neal who basically scored 4 goals in his last 20 but 3 were in one game. 5 assists in his last 20, was a awe inspiring -20 over the whole year, was pretty much a disaster at 5v5 hockey who couldn't really be counted on except on the power play.


He was awful and lazy for the Flames and wasn't exactly motivated in Edmonton.


Barker has an atrocious contract that is going to go on longer and will probably see less icetime.

Capt, who’s Barker? Typo?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get the Milan Lucic contract is terrible debate, its not a good contract by any stretch.


But at the end of the day, there were underlyings that made him a effective add on to the lineup.


In his last 20 games he scored 4 goals and 6 assists which is a 16 goal and 40 point clip. He was a -5 which isn't good at all over a 80 game pace. But iirc correctly he was pretty much a bottom 6 guy, and I could love with a 40 point guy in the bottom 6. I also think he was viewed pretty positively in the room. He threw 69 hits in his last 20 games. There was also a definately reduction in other teams taking liberties with the Flames last year.


His contract isn't great, but I would certainly take him over Neal who basically scored 4 goals in his last 20 but 3 were in one game. 5 assists in his last 20, was a awe inspiring -20 over the whole year, was pretty much a disaster at 5v5 hockey who couldn't really be counted on except on the power play.


He was awful and lazy for the Flames and wasn't exactly motivated in Edmonton.


Barker has an atrocious contract that is going to go on longer and will probably see less icetime.

Neal was terrible here...no debate. Still doesn't justify trading for Lucic in any way shape or form. At least with Neal there was a buy out option for him even if one had to plug their nose and take a big swallow to do so. Also one has to believe he would have trade value if salary retention was in the deal. BT's worst move as GM by a mile.

You mention goal scoring. Since January 1, 2017 (3 1/2 calendar years) Lucic has potted 37 goals. In 273 games.

Neal in the same time frame? 60 in 227 games.

I get that there were mitigating circumstances and its likely there was a trade demand either from Neal himself or Peters and staff. The return never was going to be anything of value, but it didn't have to be a negative.

Again, one of the worst trades this franchise has ever made not only because the player isnt very good, but there is really no way out of it for at least 3 more years which handcuffs them everywhere else in terms of roster building.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I mean his contract does allow for it.

You know what I meant - it was deliberately structured to be buyout-proof, in that it provides no real benefit to the team to buy him out in terms of cap space.

If this was a normal contract, he'd never even have been traded here in the first place; the Oilers would have bought him out.

[SportsJunky]

As a Flames fan, stomaching the Lucic contract is one thing but not stepping up and taking charge during that whole Kassian circus did Lucic no favours with this fanbase. What the hell was he thinking? That is his job and he blew a big opportunity to show everybody that there was a new sheriff in town. I want to like Lucic but Jesus Christ how can he not understand how that deflated everybody, fans and players.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Oh I was talking about the contract just from Calgary's perspective: 4 years x $5.25 million.

If we're going by 7 x $6 it's definitely much worse. But if we're going by entire contracts I'd posit that Jonathan Ericsson's 6 x $4.25 million deal should be near the top of the list. Or David Backes' 5 x $6.

Ericcson's contract is essentially done. David Backes has 1 more season left. Lucic has 3 more seasons, NMC, as close to buyout proof as one can get, could screw us in the expansion, was a absolute no show in the 2 biggest, most physical games of the season. Hes the worst contract this team has ever had.

But I still take him over Neal....

[TheScorpion]

I don't see how Lucic screws the team at all in expansion. He has two options:

1) waive his NMC, knowing full well Seattle won't take him anyway
2) be bought out and potentially not get another contract

Hardly a dilemma.

[Sandman]

I won't try to defend Lucic's contract-we can all agree he's overpaid, but i still think he's a positive addition to the lineup and if you were to ask any of the players on the team they would agree.

[united]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

In a world where Milan Lucic and Justin Abdelkader both exist you couldn't tell me the latter doesn't have a worse contract.

Justin Abdelkader can be sent to the AHL for a loss of ~$3.1 million per season, leaving the Red Wings with ~$1.1 million per season to spend on an equal or better replacement - or ~$0.4 million in cap space by replacing him with a league-minimum player. Milan Lucic cannot be sent to the minors at all and Brent Seabrook cannot be sent to the minors until 2022.

Justin Abdelkader can be bought-out for a loss of ~$3.2 million per season, leaving the Red Wings ~$1 million to spend on an equal or better replacement - or ~$0.3 million in cap space by replacing him with a league-minimum player. Milan Lucic's and Brent Seabrook's contracts are structured in such a way that buying them out costs more than simply retaining them in whatever capacity they offer over their respective remaining term does.

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

...
There are a number of contracts in the league that are buyout candidates; Lucic's is one of them, certainly, but it is far from being the most egregious.

Why would anyone buy-out Lucic's contract with the way it's structured? He is on the list of contracts that are absolutely not buyout candidates.


Other factors at play include needs in reaching the cap floor or need for short-term cap room of course, but all things equal I don't see how you can make these arguments.

I do agree with those saying Seabrook's is worse, I was just surprised to see him that close to Lucic given the mockery thrown at Lucic's the past few years. I would also have Carey Price ahead of Lucic for what it's worth.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Trying to justify Lucic because others in the league may have worse deals. Mental gymnastics at their best.

That is literally the point of the article...GMs were asked who has the worst contract in the league. Nobody has said it is good but some don't think its the worst

Flames didn't want Lucic, they wanted to get rid of Neal and save cap space

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Trying to justify Lucic because others in the league may have worse deals. Mental gymnastics at their best.

The guy is an anchor and no longer does the one thing he used to do effectively. His worth to the team is almost zero yet he gets paid as a top 6 guy.

When he failed to step up against the Oilers (when everyone and their dog knew what was coming), was the exact moment any usefulness he may have had was gone,

Its the worst contract this team has ever owned IIRC, it will linger on for at least 3 more seasons which cripples them from using that money elsewhere to help, and there is no buy out scenario that helps the club vs having him take a shift on the 4th line. One of the worst trades in this franchises history.

You'd rather have Neal. I sure as #### wouldn't. The Neal signing was one of the worst signings in franchise history. Hindsight is 20/20 though, as most people thought it was a good signing; guaranteed 20 goal guy, what could go wrong?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

You'd rather have Neal. I sure as #### wouldn't. The Neal signing was one of the worst signings in franchise history. Hindsight is 20/20 though, as most people thought it was a good signing; guaranteed 20 goal guy, what could go wrong?

Neal had to go. Instead of buying him out at a huge loss and with nothing in return, the team traded for a contract which, on paper is also bad. But the acquired player is not anywhere near as useless on the ice and is far far better off it.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I don't see how Lucic screws the team at all in expansion. He has two options:

1) waive his NMC, knowing full well Seattle won't take him anyway
2) be bought out and potentially not get another contract

Hardly a dilemma.

Buying him out and having cap penalties for 4 years is hardly ideal. Y I are brushing it aside because you like Lucic.

Personally I hope number 1 is what was worked out with the Flames at the time of the trade with the Oilers.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by VilleN

You'd rather have Neal. I sure as #### wouldn't. The Neal signing was one of the worst signings in franchise history. Hindsight is 20/20 though, as most people thought it was a good signing; guaranteed 20 goal guy, what could go wrong?

I would prefer niether guy on the team, but i would much prefer having Neals contract.

With it, and his production this season, he would at least be marketable on the trade front. Maybe 50% retained, but all the same moveable.

Worst case you buy him out, but at least realize some cap savings.

Niether of those scenarios are available for Lucic. He is here for the duration, unless BT truly is a wizard and both finds a taker and gets ML to agree to move. Extremely unlikely.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dino7c

That is literally the point of the article...GMs were asked who has the worst contract in the league. Nobody has said it is good but some don't think its the worst

Flames didn't want Lucic, they wanted to get rid of Neal and save cap space

You should try following along sometime instead of rose color glassing every single thing said about the Flames.

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

As a Flames fan, stomaching the Lucic contract is one thing but not stepping up and taking charge during that whole Kassian circus did Lucic no favours with this fanbase. What the hell was he thinking? That is his job and he blew a big opportunity to show everybody that there was a new sheriff in town. I want to like Lucic but Jesus Christ how can he not understand how that deflated everybody, fans and players.

We are talking about humans. He obviously has a personal relationship with Kassian. You can not expect him to fight when he does not want to. I really like having a Lucic type player on our team, he adds the intimidation factor and he can park in front of the net too.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would prefer niether guy on the team, but i would much prefer having Neals contract.

With it, and his production this season, he would at least be marketable on the trade front. Maybe 50% retained, but all the same moveable.

Worst case you buy him out, but at least realize some cap savings.

Niether of those scenarios are available for Lucic. He is here for the duration, unless BT truly is a wizard and both finds a taker and gets ML to agree to move. Extremely unlikely.

His production this year is all smoke and mirrors and doesn't equate to the player he is. He got half of his season total by the 8 game mark. Pretty fortunate roll. Since that hot October he ran 8 goals, 3 which came on NYE. He clearly isn't a fit even in the Oilers lineup right now and were better with him out of the lineup. Add that the Oilers took on some of Lucic salary and Lucic can play in the lineup for the Flames, I would do that trade again.

If that trade never happened, Neal would have been the 13th forward on this team. He can't pay in the top 6 and doesn't have the chops to play in the bottom. He would be an insurable mope that you wouldn't want around any of your prospects, so Stockton would be out. He never would have had a bounce back year.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

We are talking about humans. He obviously has a personal relationship with Kassian. You can not expect him to fight when he does not want to. I really like having a Lucic type player on our team, he adds the intimidation factor and he can park in front of the net too.

Good gawd.

Yes, I really can...since that is why he is paid millions of dollars a year.

He doesn't get to pick and choose when its time to use his biggest asset. Its, literally, his job to stop the stuff we saw against the Oilers...particularly when its your teams youngest and most important core piece being targeted.

He can stand in front of the net....great.....for 2 million a year.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Robbob

His production this year is all smoke and mirrors and doesn't equate to the player he is. He got half of his season total by the 8 game mark. Pretty fortunate roll. Since that hot October he ran 8 goals, 3 which came on NYE. He clearly isn't a fit even in the Oilers lineup right now and were better with him out of the lineup. Add that the Oilers took on some of Lucic salary and Lucic can play in the lineup for the Flames, I would do that trade again.

If that trade never happened, Neal would have been the 13th forward on this team. He can't pay in the top 6 and doesn't have the chops to play in the bottom. He would be an insurable mope that you wouldn't want around any of your prospects, so Stockton would be out. He never would have had a bounce back year.

Yeah Im aware of when and how he got his goal totals...which has zero to do with what I said. Again I dont want either guy on the team but i will take Neals contract 100 times out of a 100.

At worst then, you buy him out and guess what? You have cap space! Now, its possible but no one knows for sure, that the buy out scenario was squashed by ownership. I have my doubts on that and believe it was BT trying to save face on a disasterous signing, but that is all speculation either way and something we are unlikely to know for many years, if ever.

Still, cap space is something of actual value, and even more so apparently than ever before.

Not sure why this is so hard to grasp for some.

[Robbob]

2M added cap hit for 8 years when you already have 3M on the books with a couple other players. You start painting yourself into a corner if you keep buyout players. I could see the thought process for Treliving, the trade swaps players and Edmonton eats 750k and kick the buyout down the road. If Lucic is bought out after next season Brouwer and Stone will be off and you will only have 4 years of Lucic and only the first 2 years are significant.

Edmonton also has a few on the books which doesn't make sense to eat 6 years of buyout cap hits. I think both cases it is shuffling deck chairs until they are able to do something. This current sports world also puts a wrinkle on things, but I would expect in time leading up to the expansion draft is when things start to settle around the two players.