Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Redrum]

If I could hear some kind of confirmation that this won't screw us in the expansion draft I think I could come around. We shaved a few bucks off the cap and got a slow crappy player that likes to hit(though probably not like he used to) for a slow crappy player that likes to pout. But if it does screw us that's a vastly different story.

[djsFlames]

I don't care about the on ice implications much, since I don't see either player having any kind of significant impact on their teams for the remainder of their dwindling NHL careers, it's only the (potential) "buyout proof" factor that makes me sour on this.

[dino7c]

player for player I would actually do it...lets say they each made 1M

but with the contract...did we just bail out a division rival? They can buyout Neal next season FFS

[GreenLantern2814]

Having had 12 hours to process this, I still don't like it.

I'd rather give Neal another year to turn it around and rebuild his value. If he still sucks, buy him out. The penalty is down to six years from eight at the end of next year.

We can't buy out Lucic. I suppose we could before the expansion and have his dead money on our cap for a year. Or by that time, hopefully he has a solid enough relationship with the Flames that he agrees to waive knowing he's not going to be selected.

I would be happy with a 30 point 3rd line player with Physical presence. It isn't ideal for $5.4M, but it's better than Neal and better than Brouwer.

Ferland + Hathaway for roughly the same money stings. But it's not like Lucic has horrible sins in his past a la Bertuzzi, so I will root for him to succeed.

[PlayfulGenius]

I’m just catching wind of this trade... I’m in a bit of disbelief.

One point of clarity I need... many in here are talking about expansion implications, but didn’t Lucic waive his NMC??? ... doesn’t that mean the Flames don’t have to protect him in the draft?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Redrum

If I could hear some kind of confirmation that this won't screw us in the expansion draft I think I could come around. We shaved a few bucks off the cap and got a slow crappy player that likes to hit(though probably not like he used to) for a slow crappy player that likes to pout. But if it does screw us that's a vastly different story.

Reading is hard. So many chicken-little crying over the NMC. The Flames Facebook feed, is full of so many idiots posting inaccuracies, it’s shocking that these are devoted fans.

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

The NMC doesn’t matter, really. It changes to a NTC, on June 1, 2021. This allows us to expose him to Seattle.

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/milan-lucic

CLAUSE DETAILS: June 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 - Modified NTC: Submits a list of 8 teams he can be traded to / July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 - Modified NTC: Submits a list of 10 teams he can be traded to

https://www.nhl.com/news/seattle-202...ed/c-302586918

NMC = requires protecting.
NTC = does not.

I want to think, that this will be the last post on the matter, but really I shouldn’t underestimate.

[CETokyo]

I can try be objective (a bit of cynical/sarcasm)

but it just seems more like a case ethical and moral vandalism against the team and its fans
Buy him out - do anything - but do not trade for the worst contract in hockey from the main rival
Sports vandalism (hahaha?)

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

We can't buy out Lucic. I suppose we could before the expansion and have his dead money on our cap for a year. Or by that time, hopefully he has a solid enough relationship with the Flames that he agrees to waive knowing he's not going to be selected.

When I heard there was a hold up on the trade because of NMC talks the first thing that came to mind was Tree getting a "wink wink" agreement from Lucic that he would agree to Seattle only for the expansion draft, obviously he wouldn't agree to fully waive his NMC or he would be riding buses in Stockton.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

When I heard there was a hold up on the trade because of NMC talks the first thing that came to mind was Tree getting a "wink wink" agreement from Lucic that he would agree to Seattle only for the expansion draft, obviously he wouldn't agree to fully waive his NMC or he would be riding buses in Stockton.

Or you’re just wrong.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

When I heard there was a hold up on the trade because of NMC talks the first thing that came to mind was Tree getting a "wink wink" agreement from Lucic that he would agree to Seattle only for the expansion draft, obviously he wouldn't agree to fully waive his NMC or he would be riding buses in Stockton.

Here's my question about Seattle: why do they draft Lucic?

Let's look at both our protection options:

7F 3D

Johnny, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Backlund, Dube, Bennett (whoever)

Gio, Hanifin, Valimaki

4F 4D

Johnny Sean Tkachuk Lindholm
Gio Valimaki Hanifin Andersson

There's no way to keep all our defensemen. One of Kylington/Andersson/Hanifin is gone. It doesn't matter if Lucic is 'unprotected' - he'll be 34-35 by then, still have his stupid contract, and nobody is taking him when they can have Oliver Kylington or Rasmus Andersson instead.

All Lucic has to do is agree to waive for the draft so it doesn't force us to expose another forward. If he's agreed to that, he's alright in my book - he does bring more of what we need than Neal.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Here's my question about Seattle: why do they draft Lucic?

Let's look at both our protection options:

7F 3D

Johnny, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Backlund, Dube, Bennett (whoever)

Gio, Hanifin, Valimaki

4F 4D

Johnny Sean Tkachuk Lindholm
Gio Valimaki Hanifin Andersson

There's no way to keep all our defensemen. One of Kylington/Andersson/Hanifin is gone. It doesn't matter if Lucic is 'unprotected' - he'll be 34-35 by then, still have his stupid contract, and nobody is taking him when they can have Oliver Kylington or Rasmus Andersson instead.

All Lucic has to do is agree to waive for the draft so it doesn't force us to expose another forward. If he's agreed to that, he's alright in my book - he does bring more of what we need than Neal.

It’s about opportunity cost.
Him not requiring a protection spot, allows us to allocate that protected spot to an actual desirable long term asset.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Reading is hard. So many chicken-little crying over the NMC. The Flames Facebook feed, is full of so many idiots posting inaccuracies, it’s shocking that these are devoted fans.



https://www.capfriendly.com/players/milan-lucic


https://www.nhl.com/news/seattle-202...ed/c-302586918

NMC = requires protecting.
NTC = does not.

I want to think, that this will be the last post on the matter, but really I shouldn’t underestimate.

I would agree with you especially on the bold statement. Except that you didn't read cap-friendly. On years 21-22, 22-23 he has a NMC as well as a Modified NTC! The NMC is regarding him being waived/sent down and so on. The modified NTC does indeed change from a full NTC to a list of 8 teams. Which means you had a long rent about nothing.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I would agree with you especially on the bold statement. Except that you didn't read cap-friendly. On years 21-22, 22-23 he has a NMC as well as a Modified NTC! The NMC is regarding him being waived/sent down and so on. The modified NTC does indeed change from a full NTC to a list of 8 teams. Which means you had a long rent about nothing.

How about a wager, that at conclusion of the deal, he can be exposed to Seattle.

$100?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

How about a wager, that at conclusion of the deal, he can be exposed to Seattle.

$100?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Let’s think about this objectively.
What’s the detriment to Lucic, relaxing his NMC for the expansion draft?
1) he isn’t chosen, so Flames can protect a proper asset (BT would hedge on this)
2) he IS chosen, and can play final 2 seasons near home. (Unless his production increases substantially, this is unlikely)

I’m confident he isn’t protected come June 2021.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

How about a wager, that at conclusion of the deal, he can be exposed to Seattle.

$100?

Go look at the clauses on Phaneuf's contract: https://www.capfriendly.com/players/dion-phaneuf

He had a 12 team trade list and a NMC. It was widely documented 2 years ago that he refused to waive the NMC for the Vegas expansion draft. As a result, Ottawa lost Methot to Vegas.

If your interpretation was accurate, Ottawa could have exposed Phaneuf without his permission and protected Methot.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Let’s think about this objectively.
What’s the detriment to Lucic, relaxing his NMC for the expansion draft?
1) he isn’t chosen, so Flames can protect a proper asset (BT would hedge on this)
2) he IS chosen, and can play final 2 seasons near home. (Unless his production increases substantially, this is unlikely)

I’m confident he isn’t protected come June 2021.

Hold your horses, I was discussing idiots posting inaccuracies on the internet. Your words by the way. Which you pretty much did.

I have no idea if he will or he won’t, but the decision seems to be in his hands.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

It’s about opportunity cost.
Him not requiring a protection spot, allows us to allocate that protected spot to an actual desirable long term asset.

I understand that, I'm saying I don't see why Lucic wouldn't agree to waive his NMC for an expansion draft he knows he won't be selected in.

If you're Seattle, why do you draft one year of an old, broken down Milan Lucic instead of Oliver Kylington?

You don't. We can already protect every forward we really need. We can't protect all our D. Lucic's impact on the expansion draft should be pretty minimal - it just sucks that he won't be able to handcuff the Oilers anymore.

I suppose Lucic doesn't prevent us from doing anything Neal wouldn't have anyway, and at least Lucic fills a role. Whatever this board's feelings on buyouts are, it's clear ownership was not viewing that as an option for Neal. So what the hell. It's a heavy division; maybe I don't hate it as much as I should. Maybe it's the weed.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by neo45

James Neal's situation is that he didn't come into camp at the proper shape and mental state for the game, end of story. My concern always going in was the effect of back to back Cup finals losses, that wears on somebody physically, mentally and is a killer for confidence, and it SHOWED!

I think this is a big thing, and a reason I think a bounce back from Neal is a little more likely than not. 3 cities in 3 years (now 4 in 4) with 'short' off-seasons...I can definitely see how that might have caught up with Neal this year.

As for locker room troubles, neither Nashville nor Vegas seemed to have had issues reaching the finals with Neal. Sometimes things just don't click, but that sort of thing is usually a two way street. With only 1 year of regular season success over the past few years, this team is in a bit of a glass house in terms of casting stones at this particular 'new guy'

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Here's my question about Seattle: why do they draft Lucic?

Let's look at both our protection options:

7F 3D

Johnny, Monahan, Lindholm, Tkachuk, Backlund, Dube, Bennett (whoever)

Gio, Hanifin, Valimaki

4F 4D

Johnny Sean Tkachuk Lindholm
Gio Valimaki Hanifin Andersson

There's no way to keep all our defensemen. One of Kylington/Andersson/Hanifin is gone. It doesn't matter if Lucic is 'unprotected' - he'll be 34-35 by then, still have his stupid contract, and nobody is taking him when they can have Oliver Kylington or Rasmus Andersson instead.

All Lucic has to do is agree to waive for the draft so it doesn't force us to expose another forward. If he's agreed to that, he's alright in my book - he does bring more of what we need than Neal.

They don't.