Neal scatched

[dirk diggler]

Hope Neal has some pride and comes back with a chip on his shoulder but i dont see it. we have Lucic 2.0 on the roster and with guaranteed contracts, i dont see the real incentive. he has already shown no heart at all.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

I do recall you as a voice of reason.



The positive thing is that I can now retire (burn) the Neal excuse rolodex, which included such gems as: (not an exhaustive list):



- some nonsense about his stick

- some nonsense about how a guy who has had 5 teams, still needs time to settle into a new team (shouldn’t he be an expert at changing teams by now)

- some nonsense about how he’d score if he was on the top line (even though he was after every PK and never looked like scoring)

- some nonsense about how he wasn’t even really trying because he was saving himself for the stretch/playoffs

- some nonsense about how his presence was the important thing, doesn’t matter if he scored or not

- some nonsense about how his shooting percentage couldn’t stay low (even though his shots were all powder puffs)



And then his defenders inventing ‘facts’ such as “the flames went on a losing streak when Neal got injured”...when they actually went in a season high 7 game winning streak...



His performance in game 4 was as despicable of a performance as I’ve seen from anyone in a Flames uniform.



If we want to get rid of Neal, we need to add a second round pick (as least) to sweeten the deal. It’s worth it!

All true. I personally wouldn’t want to use assets to get rid of mistakes, not even sure if a 2nd even gets it done personally. I’m more in favor of a lateral trade at this point. Karl Alzner’s contract would be much easier to buy out. Treliving should start thinking about any option with less term that would make for an easier buyout going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

All true. I personally wouldn’t want to use assets to get rid of mistakes, not even sure if a 2nd even gets it done personally. I’m more in favor of a lateral trade at this point. Karl Alzner’s contract would be much easier to buy out. Treliving should start thinking about any option with less term that would make for an easier buyout going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You make a good point and I don’t disagree that a reclamation project would be better than shipping off assets.

Neal may be successful elsewhere...I hope one of the other 30 GM’s agrees with me.

If it’s the only option available, I’d rather have 4 years of 5.75 million in extra cap space over a 2nd round pick. But your option is certainly better

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by pgsieve

The irony here is that we didn’t pull the trigger on Mark Stone out of fear of losing Valamaki and our first, etc. The irony being that we are likely paying that now to get rid of him

Not a chance in hell we trade Valimaki to get rid of Neal. A 1st maybe depending where it is.

That being said where is our 1st this year now that we are eliminated?

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Not a chance in hell we trade Valimaki to get rid of Neal. A 1st maybe depending where it is.

That being said where is our 1st this year now that we are eliminated?

26th overall

[BurningSteel]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

26th overall

Any one good that deep?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Anyone with less term than Neal is worth considering IMO. He was scratched in favor of an AHL level player in most important game of year.

it depends what the goal is.

If you want to win in the next 2 years, you need to do everything you can to maximize your cap space which means not taking on another bad contract, whether it's 1 year left or 4. You package picks or prospects like Dube with the bad money you want to send out, and then you send out more picks and maybe a top prospect like Valimaki to get that player that pushes you over the top like a legit top tier centre.

If you're looking to tread water, there are all sorts of bad contracts out there you could trade for, but that doesn't really improve the situation at all for the Flames in a winning capacity. Even if Neal was a 20 goal guy, the Flames are still seriously lacking in their centre group. 77 and 47 points from your top 2 centres isn't going to cut it, especially when one of them doesn't provide a ton other than scoring.

Decide if you want to win now or win later and make the appropriate moves.

In my mind the situation for the Flames now is to try to win with Tkachuk and the young defensive group, which means selling in the short term. Think trading Backlund, Gio, Gaudreau, Monahan, Brodie, Hamonic for primarily picks and high level prospects (vs the hanowski's of the world).

There's a way to win and there's a way to not and I think right now following this loss you have to consider where the Flames are at in terms of that winning formula.

The rebuild is over and this is more or less the team now in terms of their high end, core group. Is this roster good enough or should you try again for a window 3 years from now with a 24 year old Tkachuk and a defensive group just entering their prime years?

You can do one or the other, but there is a straight forward and established roadmap to building a contending roster.

My guess is the Flames will go in the win now direction and I honestly don't think that has much chance at success. Maybe with a player like Stone or O'Reilly you'd have a chance, but those guys don't become available often. If you have to move a bunch of assets to drop your dead money to fit one of those guys in, do you then still have the assets to actually grab them? I don't think so with where the organization is right now. They need those assets like Valimaki and Andersson to actually compete.

Calgary's continual sustained problem has been robbing Peter to pay Paul. This will always be the problem until they address that asset gap with some short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think the Flames ownership has it in them to do that though, especially not with the Arena hanging in the balance.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

it depends what the goal is.

If you want to win in the next 2 years, you need to do everything you can to maximize your cap space which means not taking on another bad contract, whether it's 1 year left or 4. You package picks or prospects like Dube with the bad money you want to send out, and then you send out more picks and maybe a top prospect like Valimaki to get that player that pushes you over the top like a legit top tier centre.

If you're looking to tread water, there are all sorts of bad contracts out there you could trade for, but that doesn't really improve the situation at all for the Flames in a winning capacity. Even if Neal was a 20 goal guy, the Flames are still seriously lacking in their centre group. 77 and 47 points from your top 2 centres isn't going to cut it, especially when one of them doesn't provide a ton other than scoring.

Decide if you want to win now or win later and make the appropriate moves.

In my mind the situation for the Flames now is to try to win with Tkachuk and the young defensive group, which means selling in the short term. Think trading Backlund, Gio, Gaudreau, Monahan, Brodie, Hamonic for primarily picks and high level prospects (vs the hanowski's of the world).

There's a way to win and there's a way to not and I think right now following this loss you have to consider where the Flames are at in terms of that winning formula.

The rebuild is over and this is more or less the team now in terms of their high end, core group. Is this roster good enough or should you try again for a window 3 years from now with a 24 year old Tkachuk and a defensive group just entering their prime years?

You can do one or the other, but there is a straight forward and established roadmap to building a contending roster.

My guess is the Flames will go in the win now direction and I honestly don't think that has much chance at success. Maybe with a player like Stone or O'Reilly you'd have a chance, but those guys don't become available often. If you have to move a bunch of assets to drop your dead money to fit one of those guys in, do you then still have the assets to actually grab them? I don't think so with where the organization is right now. They need those assets like Valimaki and Andersson to actually compete.

Calgary's continual sustained problem has been robbing Peter to pay Paul. This will always be the problem until they address that asset gap with some short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think the Flames ownership has it in them to do that though, especially not with the Arena hanging in the balance.

LOL. Yes, we should completely end up doing that so we can end up Oiler bad. What a brutal idea.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

LOL. Yes, we should completely end up doing that so we can end up Oiler bad. What a brutal idea.

Depending on what you get back with trading pretty much every core player except for Tkachuk, the Flames have a chance for a nice quick retool that can shape them up well to be a strong team for many years. Those players are all value friendly, which means they can yield good returns. It wouldn't be like when the Flames traded Iginla from a position of no leverage really. (Age, prime years past, and contract expiring)

You SHOULD be able to get good picks and prospects from Gaudreau and Monahan, and Gio should bring in a good asset pick up as well. Those three alone demand a high price. Mix in Brodie, Hamonic, and Backlund, and all the years of giving away draft picks, and not having any forward prospects on tap shouldn't be the case anymore. You're looking at at least 4-6 early round picks, and 4-6 prospects; some of whom should be blue-chip.

The remainder of the roster would place more importance on Tkachuk, Lindholm, Bennett, Dube, Maginpanie, and the young D core to hold the forth while the youth brought in develops. But with free agency pickups due to the freed up cap space, the Flames could still ice a lineup that could contend for making the playoffs. So it wouldn't be Oilers bad. (Not that the Flames and Oilers are all that different honestly in end of the season results)

At least if they make it then, they would get experience for a very young, and most importantly, developing core/roster. It's different from now since the two biggest core players aren't really in that developing stage anymore. Gaudreau may have a little bit more improvement to gain depending on how he treats his fitness, but Monahan I feel has peaked.

Some may think 'blowing it up' after the season they had is crazy talk, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a good idea if the roster can't be improved to address the needs this off season. If Johnny can't get pressure taken off from him by a new big impact addition, then the Flames are likely going to be treading water, and not making any playoff gains anytime soon. It would be better in getting ahead of this, and look towards the future to bring success quicker, rather than later. They have an opportunity they can take advantage of if they want to right now.

[neo45]

Buy him out.

A team has literally never regretted a buyout. The net 7.8 million in cap savings is more of a plus than Neal will ever bring on the ice or in a trade.

Admit your mistakes, swallow your pride and move on.

[neo45]

How much of a hindrance was Brouwers cap hit to us this season? Bouma’s? Raymond’s last year? Buyouts are an underutilized tool to subtract a negative and get some cap room and a roster spot for a better player.

Buy. Him. Out.

[Bs&Cs]

Originally Posted by neo45

How much of a hindrance was Brouwers cap hit to us this season? Bouma’s? Raymond’s last year? Buyouts are an underutilized tool to subtract a negative and get some cap room and a roster spot for a better player.

Buy. Him. Out.

And have three million in dead cap for the next decade?

All those buyouts weren't a hindrance because they didn't need the space that badly. Those days are over.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Bs&Cs

And have three million in dead cap for the next decade?

All those buyouts weren't a hindrance because they didn't need the space that badly. Those days are over.

Right now James Neal is 5.75 million in dead cap. If we need cap room more now than we have in the past, then a buyout makes even more sense.


Also no idea where you are getting “3 million in dead cap for a decade” from

[FaFaFlamey]

I say buy him out. And I wouldn't blow this up yet. I say retool for sure. I think Monahan goes for a first round pick. Get anything you can for Brodie, Janko, and perhaps Backland...I think BT will pull something off.

[btimbit]

Give him another year. Buy him out now and pay him 2 mil until 2027, no thanks. See if he comes back with a vengeance or not first

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It was never about people not wanting Neal to be criticized it was the manner in which you did so with obsessive singular focus and being dismissive of any counter point
Rarely people get upset on this site about what people say more how they say it

That’s some amazing revisionist history you have there. In fact on my very first Neal post, you called me “silly” for comparing the Neal signing to the Brouwer signing. Do you stand by that still?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

That’s some amazing revisionist history you have there. In fact on my very first Neal post, you called me “silly” for comparing the Neal signing to the Brouwer signing. Do you stand by that still?

I think they are two very different players but the outcome indeed after year 1 is the same. So I have no problem admitting I was wrong

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CanadaMatt

That’s some amazing revisionist history you have there. In fact on my very first Neal post, you called me “silly” for comparing the Neal signing to the Brouwer signing. Do you stand by that still?

Can we award a “was right about Neal” custom handle or something so we can be done with this already?

[442scotty]

Treliving should have learned from the Brouwer signing. The fact that he went out and signed an even worse deal with Neal is disturbing. I think the team might give Neal a short leash this fall but Neal is seriously washed up and will drag down the team if kept around.

[CanadaMatt]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Can we award a “was right about Neal” custom handle or something so we can be done with this already?

Let me get this straight. So people can be on the receiving end of posts like this one below from direwolf (not me in this instance fortunately), having simply stated that Neal was overrated in their opinion...and when it turns out they were right, everyone is just supposed to move on? I just want to make sure I understand the rules...

Originally Posted by direwolf