James Neal

[The_Tribal Chief]

A player with Moneyhands's Calibur and talent your not no offence gonna get from a trade unless you sell your First Child or you draft it

[cross16]

3 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I don't care what anyone says here, if Neal had played top line RW with Gaudreau and Monahan we would not be talking about what to do with him now at great lengths. I agree the trade list may be small now but there are 2 or 3 that could use what Neal still has to offer and it only takes one.

 

We saw Neal with those guys though and his level of play, lack of speed and lack of success was just as apparent with them. 

 

We would 100% still be talking about it. 

[MAC331]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

We saw Neal with those guys though and his level of play, lack of speed and lack of success was just as apparent with them. 

 

We would 100% still be talking about it. 

As usual I disagree and think the sample was quite small and barely measurable but you know more than anyone so ………..we will go with you jaded explanation on Neal.

You never wanted him here we all get it.

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, MAC331 said:

As usual I disagree and think the sample was quite small and barely measurable but you know more than anyone so ………..we will go with you jaded explanation on Neal.

You never wanted him here we all get it.

 

I think it’s the consensus with anything other than Monahan and Gaudreau. It was tried, didn’t work so they moved on. It’s why I hate huge training camp rosters. I’d rather get more reps in to figure out line combos. Once the season starts wins are too valuable to try anything else. 

 

For me the very fact that the first line was so dominant was a problem because no other lines worked. I get the idea of keeping them together but it was at the expense of the depth. On paper we had great depth, but non of it fired on all cylinders at once. The third like worked a bit with Czarnik on it. The 3M line was off and on. The 4th line was stellar down the stretch. 

 

For me, not enough was tried. Once the first line got figured out, the team was toast. 

[The_Tribal Chief]

Dont Forget Aswell last Season what also a Tougher training camp we did it in China now as much as the players didnt complain that had to have played a factor somewhat

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I think it’s the consensus with anything other than Monahan and Gaudreau. It was tried, didn’t work so they moved on. It’s why I hate huge training camp rosters. I’d rather get more reps in to figure out line combos. Once the season starts wins are too valuable to try anything else. 

 

For me the very fact that the first line was so dominant was a problem because no other lines worked. I get the idea of keeping them together but it was at the expense of the depth. On paper we had great depth, but non of it fired on all cylinders at once. The third like worked a bit with Czarnik on it. The 3M line was off and on. The 4th line was stellar down the stretch. 

 

For me, not enough was tried. Once the first line got figured out, the team was toast. 

All said I hope BT can find a trade for Neal and if he has to put something with him so be it. If he remains he is no different than Tkachuk or Monahan you have to have linemates that compliment them. All 3 need speed around them, in Monahan and Neal's case they need a playmaker, Tkachuk is his own playmaker, checker and scorer which makes him special for us. I don't believe they will ever bust up Gaudreau and Monahan but I think Lindholm can be put to better use as a C for our 2nd line with Tkachuk. Here in lies the problem with keeping Neal because you don't want him to further slow down the top 2 lines especially on defense back checking. If you slide him down with Bennett and Backlund you take away the defensive aspect of that line and you still have no real playmaker. We are right back to where we were before the CAR deal and bringing in Neal which is finding good RW solutions.

[jjgallow]

IMHO the title of this thread should be  "Brad Treliving" and whether to keep him.

 

Punishing a player for an entirely predictable outcome won't make us better.

[Cowtownguy]

On 2019-05-16 at 10:29 PM, robrob74 said:

 

I think it’s the consensus with anything other than Monahan and Gaudreau. It was tried, didn’t work so they moved on. It’s why I hate huge training camp rosters. I’d rather get more reps in to figure out line combos. Once the season starts wins are too valuable to try anything else. 

 

For me the very fact that the first line was so dominant was a problem because no other lines worked. I get the idea of keeping them together but it was at the expense of the depth. On paper we had great depth, but non of it fired on all cylinders at once. The third like worked a bit with Czarnik on it. The 3M line was off and on. The 4th line was stellar down the stretch. 

 

For me, not enough was tried. Once the first line got figured out, the team was toast. 

That is odd and interesting at the same time. I would have to review the stats over the year to be sure, but it feels like you are correct. We were getting the points and finding ways to win in the regular season. As such, I assumed that, if healthy, we would really gel in the playoffs. It just never seemed like all 4 lines were capable of performing consistently.

 

That is easy to say as a fan. I am sure that the players would say they worked hard all year long and some games you are rewarded, while you are hooped in others. We lacked consistency in '17/'18 in terms of winning and losing. This last year, it seemed like lines just turned on and off.

[Thebrewcrew]

I get that Neal had some opportunity with 13 and 23, but IMO nowhere near enough. History has proven that it doesn't really matter who's playing with Gaudreau and Monahan, that line still scores... Hudler, Colborne, Ferland, Lindholm. We are stuck with Neal so we may as well do our best to make it work. You'd think Neal would work his tail off this summer to ensure he bounces back. My opinion is since you're stuck with him, you may as well try to make it work. I'd give him the start of the next season on the top line, provided he has a decent training camp. 7-10 games to start the season, if he is a non-factor then you scratch him, if he is then maybe your 5.75 isn't a complete waste.

 

Either way putting him with players like 77, 93, 27 etc isn't going to get more than 19 points next season out of Neal

[travel_dude]

On 5/16/2019 at 10:29 PM, robrob74 said:

 

I think it’s the consensus with anything other than Monahan and Gaudreau. It was tried, didn’t work so they moved on. It’s why I hate huge training camp rosters. I’d rather get more reps in to figure out line combos. Once the season starts wins are too valuable to try anything else. 

 

For me the very fact that the first line was so dominant was a problem because no other lines worked. I get the idea of keeping them together but it was at the expense of the depth. On paper we had great depth, but non of it fired on all cylinders at once. The third like worked a bit with Czarnik on it. The 3M line was off and on. The 4th line was stellar down the stretch. 

 

For me, not enough was tried. Once the first line got figured out, the team was toast. 

 

That's the problem with winning and coaches isn't it.

Lindholm played well enough with them until February.

Neal didn't get a chance.

Was it maybe a few shifts every 3rd game or less?

Didn;t even stay on the top PP unit that long.

Neal was supposed to be a complementary playe, but never fit in.

Playing on a line that did little the entire season.

It didn;t matter whether Czarnik or Neal played there; it didn;t do much.

 

 

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

That's the problem with winning and coaches isn't it.

Lindholm played well enough with them until February.

Neal didn't get a chance.

Was it maybe a few shifts every 3rd game or less?

Didn;t even stay on the top PP unit that long.

Neal was supposed to be a complementary playe, but never fit in.

Playing on a line that did little the entire season.

It didn;t matter whether Czarnik or Neal played there; it didn;t do much.

 

 

What happened with the top line, did they run out of purple Kool Aid ? Kind of begs for a few answers doesn't it.

[ABC923]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What happened with the top line, did they run out of purple Kool Aid ? Kind of begs for a few answers doesn't it.

They went on vacation during the week long break.  Two years in a row they come back looking lethargic and apathetic. Coincidence?

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

What happened with the top line, did they run out of purple Kool Aid ? Kind of begs for a few answers doesn't it.

 

I think it demonstrates that it's very difficult to maintain a p/gp pace for 82 games.  Personally, I think it comes down to fitness level.

Not every player is McDavid, who can play 22 minutes per game and look the same for 82 games.  Frolik and Gio were the fitness freaks coming into the season, but even Gio tailed off at the end.  Guys like JH who eat pizza over trying to maintain a superior fitness program will burn out.

 

I do think there is some truth to playing meaningless games in the last month of the season being part of the cause.  The Flames qualified early on, and all they needed to work for was 1st in the Division and going into the playoffs healthy.  Players like JH are going to be less dynamic and take less chances to make sure they don't get injured.  It's just speculation on my part.  Monahan and Lindholm shut down sooner.  They became shells of themselves long before the playoffs started.  Without those two, JH is just a player to shut down.  The frustration level for him got really high when the others were unable to score and even the PP was neutered.  

[MAC331]

5 hours ago, ABC923 said:

They went on vacation during the week long break.  Two years in a row they come back looking lethargic and apathetic. Coincidence?

It was almost like they came back and didn't like each other anymore. LOL

Hope it doesn't carry into next season because I would like to see them kept together.

[robrob74]

54 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

It was almost like they came back and didn't like each other anymore. LOL

Hope it doesn't carry into next season because I would like to see them kept together.

 

I thought the same. Competition over who gets which girl? 

[The_People1]

8 hours ago, travel_dude said:

The Flames qualified early on, and all they needed to work for was 1st in the Division and going into the playoffs healthy.  Players like JH are going to be less dynamic and take less chances to make sure they don't get injured.  

 

Yes.  That's where guys like Bennett take over... The "second group" to lead the team through the playoffs.  We should not trade Bennett.  We should actually add more if available.

 

Maybe Kyle Clifford from the Kings if the Kings want to rebuild?  

 

Do we check in with WSH for DSP?  He was on waivers prior to the TDL.

 

Should we take a look at Wayne Simmonds?

[jjgallow]

 

some random thoughts....

 

The James Neal thread is getting very popular, and right fully so with the contract.

 

But, was James really our takeaway from the playoffs?   Did we all watch that series and think..."yeah...James' fault.   If only we could fix the James situation we would have won."

 

I always find it funny how we beat around the bush and steer everyone clear of the biggest issues.

 

And how it leads to a buy high, sell low cycle.     James has low value right now, so we want to ship him (getting nothing back).  Gaudreau has high value right now, was the actual problem (or a big piece of it, along with defence), and we want to keep him.

 

Meanwhile we've got another initiative to bring Eberle on board.   After what just happened......

 

anyway

 

[ABC923]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

some random thoughts....

 

The James Neal thread is getting very popular, and right fully so with the contract.

 

But, was James really our takeaway from the playoffs?   Did we all watch that series and think..."yeah...James' fault.   If only we could fix the James situation we would have won."

 

I always find it funny how we beat around the bush and steer everyone clear of the biggest issues.

 

And how it leads to a buy high, sell low cycle.     James has low value right now, so we want to ship him.  Gaudreau has high value right now, was the actual problem (or a big piece of it, along with defence), and we want to keep him.

 

anyway

 

I would say he was a problem, but not the problem.  I think the attention comes as he provided almost no value for money, and the cap hit prevents us from making certain moves this offseason.  

[robrob74]

14 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

I would say he was a problem, but not the problem.  I think the attention comes as he provided almost no value for money, and the cap hit prevents us from making certain moves this offseason.  

 

19 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

some random thoughts....

 

The James Neal thread is getting very popular, and right fully so with the contract.

 

But, was James really our takeaway from the playoffs?   Did we all watch that series and think..."yeah...James' fault.   If only we could fix the James situation we would have won."

 

I always find it funny how we beat around the bush and steer everyone clear of the biggest issues.

 

And how it leads to a buy high, sell low cycle.     James has low value right now, so we want to ship him (getting nothing back).  Gaudreau has high value right now, was the actual problem (or a big piece of it, along with defence), and we want to keep him.

 

Meanwhile we've got another initiative to bring Eberle on board.   After what just happened......

 

anyway

 

 

A goal here or there could’ve made the difference and the Flames are paying him to score. Whether it’s him or the coach... 

 

momentum works in mysterious ways. There was a lot wrong with the team. It was on EVERYONE. 

 

Not enough players were “going” so I guess Peters couldn’t get an accurate read on who to play. His strength was reading the bench and getting the most out of what’s working.

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

I thought the same. Competition over who gets which girl? 

Hopefully it wasn't anything personal like that but it sure seemed Gaudreau went back to the old ways of feeding Monahan and Lindholm became an after thought for the scraps.

Just a thought but I think a line of Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm would be very good together. These guys would definitely compete every game.

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Hopefully it wasn't anything personal like that but it sure seemed Gaudreau went back to the old ways of feeding Monahan and Lindholm became an after thought for the scraps.

Just a thought but I think a line of Tkachuk, Bennett, Lindholm would be very good together. These guys would definitely compete every game.

 

Lindholm was being fed, but was missing out on every opportunity he touched the puck.  He regularly missed the net, blew a one-timer, or the play just died on his stick.  I don't know if it coincided with a minor injury that messed him timing up or what.  

[travel_dude]

13 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes.  That's where guys like Bennett take over... The "second group" to lead the team through the playoffs.  We should not trade Bennett.  We should actually add more if available.

 

Maybe Kyle Clifford from the Kings if the Kings want to rebuild?  

 

Do we check in with WSH for DSP?  He was on waivers prior to the TDL.

 

Should we take a look at Wayne Simmonds?

 

I'm not sure how you can really say that about Bennett.  8 points in 22 games after the AS break.  Sure, he was one of the few to get points in the playoffs.  1g 2a on the PP and 2a 5v5.  If we are keeping him, then they better find a line for him to play on where he can do more than hit people.

 

 

11 hours ago, jjgallow said:

And how it leads to a buy high, sell low cycle.     James has low value right now, so we want to ship him (getting nothing back).  Gaudreau has high value right now, was the actual problem (or a big piece of it, along with defence), and we want to keep him.

 

Are we really laying the losses there?  Seems to me two GWG's were scored by the inability of the top "shutdown" line to score on high danger (basically empty nets) chances only to have them turn into goals the other way.  Both of those were OT losses.  Backlund and Tkachuk were the biggest no-shows from the team, well that and Gio forgetting what Norris meant.  

[jjgallow]

41 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Are we really laying the losses there?  Seems to me two GWG's were scored by the inability of the top "shutdown" line to score on high danger (basically empty nets) chances only to have them turn into goals the other way.  Both of those were OT losses.  Backlund and Tkachuk were the biggest no-shows from the team, well that and Gio forgetting what Norris meant.  

 

That was one component of many, really none of the lines scored.  Name the line, same thing.    But that wasn't even our biggest problem, that goes back to what you said about Gio, and generally our defence.   We were smoked on defence.    The only thing I Can't think of to blame is goaltending, and goaltending also was not cup-worthy.  Just, we were given good enough goaltending to win the series and still did not.

 

robrob74 said it best:  EVERYONE.   

 

At the same time though, some were worse than others.

 

 

Bottom line, I don't think James Neal is going to solve the problem we have, no matter what you do with him.   Yes, it's a worthy discussion topic.  As are Most other players on our team right now.    Many of which have high trade value.     I'm just seeing the buy high, sell low mentality, potentially, and making a note on it.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not sure how you can really say that about Bennett.  8 points in 22 games after the AS break.  Sure, he was one of the few to get points in the playoffs.  1g 2a on the PP and 2a 5v5.  If we are keeping him, then they better find a line for him to play on where he can do more than hit people.

 

You are not sure how I can say Bennett performs in the playoffs???

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

You are not sure how I can say Bennett performs in the playoffs???

 

The thing about us is we see things through a biased lens. We have our minds made up about certain players. I have always felt that Monahan wasn’t this great #1C and needs a Gaudreau or Hudler to perform or he doesn’t do much else. 

 

Travel isnt the biggest Bennett fan so he doesn’t see the intangibles he brings that others don’t. But I think you can’t win if you don’t have enough players that do the things Bennett does. We have two F players and a D or two who do that. Others do, but they’re small so they just bounce off of the other team.