Lucic for Neal Trade

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, sak22 said:

The sweetener is the 500k in cap savings for 4 years.  You don't get a 21 year old former #4 pick or a future 1st rounder, or anything of significance when you trade away another anchor deal.  I think JP was a pipe dream in this deal that people need to let go, wasn't going to happen for Neal, Eriksson or any other bad deal.

 

That was the reported trade coming from EDM for any decent deal.

They are happy to not have to attach JP to Lucic.

 

500k is not much when you consider the terms of Lucic's deal.

Buyout proof, NMC, gets >=  of a signing bonus than every other Flames. 

I'm saying that them retaining 2m would still have been a win in their eyes.

 

The swap of players is a completely different argument.

Won;t make us any worse as it stands today.

Does force us to look elsewhere to save money.

And that usually means taking a haircut on skill.

 

Frolik and Brodie, for better or worse, still made this team better.

Trading them to save money will not make us better.

If we can pull off a Kadri deal, then that's different.

[Cowtownguy]

Neal's value is so low, that it can only go up. I mean, could he be any worse than this last year? Why not give him more time to turn things around? Something pushed Treliving's hand here.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

Trading Neal was never going to solve the cap issues, we were always going to have to take back another bad contract. Trading Neal was always about getting rid of a player that didn't fit with the team and didn't fit with the coach.

 

Moving Stone, Brodie and Frolik was always going to happen regardless of trading Neal.

 

 

Looking at the Buyout I would have preferred they bought out Neal now instead of trading for this buyout-free contract in Lucic. 

 

The buyout of neal would have saved the flames roughly 4mil per season.

[robrob74]

36 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

Neal's value is so low, that it can only go up. I mean, could he be any worse than this last year? Why not give him more time to turn things around? Something pushed Treliving's hand here.

 

 

He must’ve asked to get dealt? 

[cccsberg]

3 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

That pretty much sums up the entire way I reacted to the trade. My big worry now is Neal becoming a 20+ goal guy again which will make the trade seem worse that it already does.

I’m focused solely on Lucic.  It would be great if Neal gets us the 3rd, just not so good it propels the Oilers too far.

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

Looking at the Buyout I would have preferred they bought out Neal now instead of trading for this buyout-free contract in Lucic. 

 

The buyout of neal would have saved the flames roughly 4mil per season.

 

This assumes that a buyout was an option. 

 

I think what is very likely is the flames owners said no buyout and probably would not have said yes for a few more years. That’s a very large cheque to write. 

[cccsberg]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

We are selling low on a player and buying low on a replacement.

Seems like the wrong time of year to do that.

Priority was to sign the RFA's and fix the cap.

 

Personally, I don't care about Neal going.  He won't make a difference in either city.

But, I think people are trying to justify it in their own mnds by suggesting there was no other option.

Lesser players have had more than one season to justify their contracts.

The coach's job is to make it work.

The Flames #1 priority after RFAs was toughness.  Mission accomplished.

[Cowtownguy]

8 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

The Flames #1 priority after RFAs was toughness.  Mission accomplished.

I wonder how McJeebus feels about this trade? Will the other Oilers look after him? Will Neal teach McDavid his radical neo-Marxist work ethic?

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I wonder how McJeebus feels about this trade? Will the other Oilers look after him? Will Neal teach McDavid his radical neo-Marxist work ethic?

 

Kassian will play with McD.

He will look after McD unless it's the BoA.  He will call in sick for those games.

[GM_3300]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

He must’ve asked to get dealt? 

I have to agree with you here. Hard to believe there was much love between Peters and Neal which leads to Treliving having to deal with it. I just thought there would have been a few more teams like NJ, CBJ or even NAS (was mentioned at one time). Anyways to late now,it is what it is.

[Heartbreaker]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

Now the most critical question that needs to be answered above all else ... Is will he really wear 17?  Or will Czarnik give up 27

 

3 hours ago, GM_3300 said:

Who cares

 

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Lucic is #17 this year.  There's a pic of his new jersey already.

 

You know, for what it's worth, 27 is my favourite number. For some of us, number selection is a big deal. I think for Milan, though, 17 is his first choice. It's been his number on every team except for Edmonton as it's retired (Jari Kurri). 

 

Love. 

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

 

 

You know, for what it's worth, 27 is my favourite number. For some of us, number selection is a big deal. I think for Milan, though, 17 is his first choice. It's been his number on every team except for Edmonton as it's retired (Jari Kurri). 

 

Love. 

 

His career will blossom as he will feel more himself now  

 

 

[Heartbreaker]

5 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

His career will blossom as he will feel more himself now  

 

I know that this sounds stupid, and I think that we've had this conversation before, but I truly believe that Sam Bennett should change his number. First of all, I don't think 93 suits him, and second, he's not Doug Gilmour. Furthermore, and an aside, when Doug Gilmour scored the most important goal of his career, he was wearing 39. 

 

Anyway, I think Sammy might have better luck finding his game in a number like 15. 26 would work really well, too - but we've already got one of those. 

 

Love. 

[robrob74]

5 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

I know that this sounds stupid, and I think that we've had this conversation before, but I truly believe that Sam Bennett should change his number. First of all, I don't think 93 suits him, and second, he's not Doug Gilmour. Furthermore, and an aside, when Doug Gilmour scored the most important goal of his career, he was wearing 39. 

 

Anyway, I think Sammy might have better luck finding his game in a number like 15. 26 would work really well, too - but we've already got one of those. 

 

Love. 

 

I do believe in those kinds of superstitions. I think even if Bennett went to #39 then he’d be fully following in Gilmour’s strides. When he gets traded to Toronto he can switch to 93.

[JTech780]

For anyone hoping to move Lucic somewhere else, it sure seems unlikely.

[travel_dude]

38 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

For anyone hoping to move Lucic somewhere else, it sure seems unlikely.

 

He will retire a Flame or be bought out.

I feel funny saying that, but we got another contract signed by the Oilers that is impossible to move again.

 

I will probably warm up to the trade as time passes, but it's raw right now.

BT reacted to the playoffs.

Made a Brian Burke decision.

Doesn't mean he is wrong, but I think he overreacted.

 

The trade stinks because we approached it wth an overpaid player that couldn't fit the top 6, and looked for a solution that didn't fit the top 6.

$5.25m is fine if they can play in the top 6.

Role player or 3-4th liner making that much kills the cap.

Neal couldn;t play himself up the lineup, but is a more skilled player.

We can;t expect a declining Lucic to somehow be a top 6 player.

And if he isn;t we just wasted $5.25m a year.

Not to mention the retained NMC.

[FueltheFlames1075]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

He will retire a Flame or be bought out.

I feel funny saying that, but we got another contract signed by the Oilers that is impossible to move again.

 

I will probably warm up to the trade as time passes, but it's raw right now.

BT reacted to the playoffs.

Made a Brian Burke decision.

Doesn't mean he is wrong, but I think he overreacted.

 

The trade stinks because we approached it wth an overpaid player that couldn't fit the top 6, and looked for a solution that didn't fit the top 6.

$5.25m is fine if they can play in the top 6.

Role player or 3-4th liner making that much kills the cap.

Neal couldn;t play himself up the lineup, but is a more skilled player.

We can;t expect a declining Lucic to somehow be a top 6 player.

And if he isn;t we just wasted $5.25m a year.

Not to mention the retained NMC.

The only thing to consider, and the big question in this trade is, is James Neal a declining player as well, or was last year just a blip? Why is everyone so quick to assume that Neal just had an off year and give him credit that he’ll bounce back, while at the same time not giving Lucic the same benefit of the doubt?

 

Maybe his last couple of years truly are a result of playing on a terrible Oilers team, and not being a good fit with their other players? We’re so quick to discount Lucic, when Neal really does carry the same risks.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, FueltheFlames1075 said:

The only thing to consider, and the big question in this trade is, is James Neal a declining player as well, or was last year just a blip? Why is everyone so quick to assume that Neal just had an off year and give him credit that he’ll bounce back, while at the same time not giving Lucic the same benefit of the doubt?

 

Maybe his last couple of years truly are a result of playing on a terrible Oilers team, and not being a good fit with their other players? We’re so quick to discount Lucic, when Neal really does carry the same risks.

 

I'm not saing we should have kept Neal, as he was a poor fit.

I am saying we are taking on a bad contract that may not fit any better.

 

At 3m, it's less of an issue.

AT 5.25m, he's the 4th most expensive forward and 5th most expensive player on the team.

He's also signed a year longer than Gaudreau.

 

[phoenix66]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

He will retire a Flame or be bought out.

I feel funny saying that, but we got another contract signed by the Oilers that is impossible to move again.

 

I will probably warm up to the trade as time passes, but it's raw right now.

BT reacted to the playoffs.

Made a Brian Burke decision.

Doesn't mean he is wrong, but I think he overreacted.

 

The trade stinks because we approached it wth an overpaid player that couldn't fit the top 6, and looked for a solution that didn't fit the top 6.

$5.25m is fine if they can play in the top 6.

Role player or 3-4th liner making that much kills the cap.

Neal couldn;t play himself up the lineup, but is a more skilled player.

We can;t expect a declining Lucic to somehow be a top 6 player.

And if he isn;t we just wasted $5.25m a year.

Not to mention the retained NMC.

I would argue this wasn't a reaction to the playoffs, rather has been his MO from day one 

First player he signs ..Engelland 

Adds Brouwer based on one beast mode playoff

Traded for Dalton Prout 

Peluso 

Went extremely hard at Ryan Reaves 

BT wanted this player profile all along 

 

I'm not overly concerned about the expansion draft just because with or without him we were likely already in a position to make a deal to make Seattle take a player to begin with

 

And like I said before , I look at this as paying -$500k for Hathaway's replacement. Neal's replacement is already in house 

 

[FueltheFlames1075]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not saing we should have kept Neal, as he was a poor fit.

I am saying we are taking on a bad contract that may not fit any better.

 

At 3m, it's less of an issue.

AT 5.25m, he's the 4th most expensive forward and 5th most expensive player on the team.

He's also signed a year longer than Gaudreau.

 

What’s the difference between having Lucic or Neal on the team though? Both will/would have played in the bottom 6, and Lucic will be the better fit there.

 

Either way they were likely overpaying a bad contract.

[JTech780]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

He will retire a Flame or be bought out.

I feel funny saying that, but we got another contract signed by the Oilers that is impossible to move again.

 

I will probably warm up to the trade as time passes, but it's raw right now.

BT reacted to the playoffs.

Made a Brian Burke decision.

Doesn't mean he is wrong, but I think he overreacted.

 

The trade stinks because we approached it wth an overpaid player that couldn't fit the top 6, and looked for a solution that didn't fit the top 6.

$5.25m is fine if they can play in the top 6.

Role player or 3-4th liner making that much kills the cap.

Neal couldn;t play himself up the lineup, but is a more skilled player.

We can;t expect a declining Lucic to somehow be a top 6 player.

And if he isn;t we just wasted $5.25m a year.

Not to mention the retained NMC.

 

The mistake was signing Neal in the 1st place. This trade is an attempt to make the best of a bad situation.

 

We don't need Lucic to be a top 6 player just like we didn't need Neal to be a top 6 player. We need is someone to fit a role, Neal didn't fit a role on this team and never would have.

 

I don't think the Flames are expecting Lucic to be a top 6 player. I also don't think Neal is a top 6 player anymore, though he may get played in the top 6 in Edmonton, but that is just because of their lack of any kind of scoring depth.

 

We are replacing a 3rd line player with a player with a 3rd line player who fits the role better, and contrary to popular belief has put up similar or better numbers on the PP and 5v5 over the last 3 years. I see us getting a player with similar offense, but is much better in his own end and is one the most imposing physical players in the league. 

 

I get that I may be in the minority but I have to agree with Cross, I think we are getting the better player, and the numbers sure bear that out.

[ABC923]

For what it’s worth, Lucic’s contract has considerably less cash value than Neal’s.  The owners saved money here, especially waiting for the signing bonus to be paid for this season.  That probably factors in too.  

[JTech780]

 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

The mistake was signing Neal in the 1st place. This trade is an attempt to make the best of a bad situation.

 

We don't need Lucic to be a top 6 player just like we didn't need Neal to be a top 6 player. We need is someone to fit a role, Neal didn't fit a role on this team and never would have.

 

I don't think the Flames are expecting Lucic to be a top 6 player. I also don't think Neal is a top 6 player anymore, though he may get played in the top 6 in Edmonton, but that is just because of their lack of any kind of scoring depth.

 

We are replacing a 3rd line player with a player with a 3rd line player who fits the role better, and contrary to popular belief has put up similar or better numbers on the PP and 5v5 over the last 3 years. I see us getting a player with similar offense, but is much better in his own end and is one the most imposing physical players in the league. 

 

I get that I may be in the minority but I have to agree with Cross, I think we are getting the better player, and the numbers sure bear that out.

 

We can't be using Neal as an excuse to trade for Lucic.

Bad signing if he wasn't going to be able to play top 6.

He came in out of shape and didn;t do anything to reduce the stink.

Played with Bennett and Janko and didn't mesh.

Fine, move on.

 

We didn;t address the need for a #3RW, we unloaded a bad contract for a bad contract.

Doesn't mean the player is useless, but when exactly did we decide we needed another bottom 6 LW.

How excatly does that make Bennett's line better?

 

As a trade of two struggling players, I am fine wiht a guy that hits and takes dumb penalties but sticks up for his team.

It makes no difference to me what he does in EDM, other than a stupid conditional 3rd that we'll never see.

 

I can get behind the player, but not the trade itself.

It was poorly constructed.

[The_People1]

13 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

Neal's value is so low, that it can only go up. I mean, could he be any worse than this last year? Why not give him more time to turn things around? Something pushed Treliving's hand here.

 

I don't agree.  

 

Neal's value can actually go down even further.  Plus, giving him more time is doing the same thing expecting different results.  This isn't a rookie.  It's an aging veteran who looks like he can't skate anymore.

 

If Neal is not scoring then he's not doing much for you.  Lucic at least can fight.