Confirmed with Link: Flames Trade Neal for Lucic (12.5% retained) and conditional 3rd round pick

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kahvi

Registered User
Sponsor
Jun 4, 2007
4,945
3,596
Alberga
Someone please tell me how it is with NMC and expansion draft. Lucic waived his NCM for this trade, does it mean that 1) there's no more NMC or 2) Lucic still has NMC, he just happened to accept thismove
 

FlamerForLife

Mon Seanahan
May 22, 2015
4,702
1,926
Calgary
Someone please tell me how it is with NMC and expansion draft. Lucic waived his NCM for this trade, does it mean that 1) there's no more NMC or 2) Lucic still has NMC, he just happened to accept thismove
#2 is correct, he would have to be asked to waive his NMC to be exposed for the expansion draft
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
34,559
54,947
Weegartown
4ea.jpg
 

CamPopplestone

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,515
2,896
Lucic can at least play bottom six. Neal didn't click with any of our top six forwards, and is beyond useless on the third line. Even if he bounces back in Edmonton, he wouldn't here.

So if we can save a bit of cap and get a pick? I'm cool with it. The only thing is we need his NMC nullified so we don't have to protect him in expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shello

snipes

How cold? I’m ice cold.
Dec 28, 2015
55,251
62,478
Why would we let our rivals off the hook for the worst contract in the league? Even if our return is digestible, it automatically opens up the possibility that the Oilers get better.

Neal must've seriously pissed off Peters and Treliving last year.

You guys objectively do need some toughness in the lineup.

Can’t believe we got Neal coming back though. He’s guaranteed to have McDavid, Drai, or Nuge as his centre.
 

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,922
15,807
Calgary
Friedman says its 600k retained...

Flames save 350k cap, good amounts of ACTUAL money, and a contract that can't be brought out. Screams ownership...
 

viper0220

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
8,729
3,706
With this organization, it is one step forward and two steps back. I feel like this has been the case since 2005.
 
Last edited:

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,495
14,845
Victoria
I'm okay with this. Neal failed all year to show anything above what AHL tweeners provide. Lucic, despite being laughable for a long time in terms of production, does do some things well, and passed the eye test during BoAs when I was watching him.

I expect that retention will end up with us saving money. If not I go from okay with it to disappointed.
 

Rangediddy

The puck was in
Oct 28, 2011
3,710
809
What we give up:
Potential bounce back from Neal
Potentially a lost expansion draft protection spot

What we get:
"Threat" of toughness. I didn't buy that Lucic was a deterent in Edm, but McDavid is a tough kid on his own so maybe Johnny does benefit from Lucic being around :dunno:
Cap space
Conditional Pick

I guess it's not the worst trade in the world to deal with when the cap space is so important. Just funny how Lucic has played for all the Western Canadian teams except for Vancouver!
 

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,922
15,807
Calgary
giphy.gif


Lucic is completely done and we will end up having to buy him or buy him out at same point. Neal had the worst season of his career and is likely going to bounce back and have a lot of opportunities with McDavid.

Absolutely atrocious trade for the Flames unless we got something like 50% retention and a 2nd.

600k retained. Virtually buyout proof contract thanks to those bonuses...

Great offseason for Tre so far. Can't imagine what the trade for Frolik will look like.
 

Favin

Registered User
Jun 24, 2015
2,466
2,033
Toronto
Lucic can at least play bottom six. Neal didn't click with any of our top six forwards, and is beyond useless on the third line. Even if he bounces back in Edmonton, he wouldn't here.

So if we can save a bit of cap and get a pick? I'm cool with it. The only thing is we need his NMC nullified so we don't have to protect him in expansion.
What do you mean by nullified? I don't think they can 'nullify' a NMC. Whatever clauses he signed with Edmonton would be applicable to Calgary as well.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
Fire Treliving right now.

I was a huge supporter of him before this but this is fireable trade in my view. Neal sucked and wasn't close to worth the money but Lucic is not an NHL quality player. He brings nothing of value with zero upside or chance to bounce back.

Effing terrible move.

Top 5 worst trade in franchise history and this is a franchise with a history of bad deals.

I would love nothing more than Lucic booed off the ice the first game of the season to show how unwanted he is here.
 

Kranix

Deranged Homer
Jun 27, 2012
18,402
16,517
I'm okay with this. Neal failed all year to show anything above what AHL tweeners provide. Lucic, despite being laughable for a long time in terms of production, does do some things well, and passed the eye test during BoAs when I was watching him.

I expect that retention will end up with us saving money. If not I go from okay with it to disappointed.

I came here thinking you were going to spin the positive and if you hadn't I was going to say, at least the putridly awful James Neal is gone, and that it would be hilarious if Lucic somehow exploded in 19/20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sk8M8

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
Haha this is awful. Neal could score 30 goals playing with McDavid, that’s literally the biggest reason we should have not done this. We made the Oilers better.

Neal on the Flames will be similar players, were a little tougher but also slower. The Oilers are much better
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad