Legionnaire11
Registered User
Probably would have been better if Poile just said "Neal is a ****head and nobody liked him, but everyone loves Calle". lol
How will we ever replace Neal's 41 points?
I would have rather lost Jarnkrok than Neal for sure, but man Neal is suddenly overrated around here. He's an oft-injured, declining winger about to hit 30 years old. I don't consider him "1st line" talent anymore. We are fine.
I wouldn't even call this a blunder for Poile. Just a weird preference. Let's see how it all plays out. We now have cap space that we wouldn't have had previously.
Neither player is worth it, we all know that, but some team will pay them that much anyway. Demand exceeds supply in this UFA market. The Preds have a clear need for a C, and more than ample cap space to play with. So the question becomes, what hurts more: overpaying one of these guys by $1.5M or trading whatever other assets for some other (likely imperfect) solution and potentially opening up other holes in the lineup? A trade for Duchene or any player like that who is clearly better than Bonino/Hanzal is going to cost assets you also don't want to use (Fiala, etc).There's no way Poile would throw $5M at Hanzal or Bonino, probably not more than $3.5 and even then, neither player is worth it, or a significant upgrade on what we have. Bonino is closer, but I'd rather roll the dice with Sissons and Jarnkrok.
Trade is the only way to get close to the 2C that we really need.
Yeah, the "first liner" comments are weird, he probably skated on the third line more often than the first line last year. If he gets back to scoring 30 consistently, then yes he's a first line guy, but if last season becomes his new normal then he's a solid second liner. Still a tough loss for a Cup contender, but not the elite sniper that he's touted as either.
I can't get the link on my computer, but the Preds FB page shared a video of Poile and the description says "GM David Poile discusses the loss of James Neal and how players like Colton Sissons and Pontus Aberg need to step up now"
How will we ever replace Neal's 41 points?
I would have rather lost Jarnkrok than Neal for sure, but man Neal is suddenly overrated around here. He's an oft-injured, declining winger about to hit 30 years old. I don't consider him "1st line" talent anymore. We are fine.
I wouldn't even call this a blunder for Poile. Just a weird preference. Let's see how it all plays out. We now have cap space that we wouldn't have had previously.
One thing I've noticed in the narrative is the following:
"Poile traded Neal for Jarnkrok"
But we don't actually know that. We just know that Poile exposed Neal instead of (likely) Jarnkrok. That doesn't mean Vegas would have taken Jarnkrok.
I'm starting to wonder if, after the Joey injury, the coaches began to take a liking to Sissons and they may actually view him as a potential 2C. At an obvious bargain price.
So what if exposing Neal was actually a really good way to protect Sissons and not get Poile eaten alive? The prevailing thought seems to be that if he had exposed Jarnkrok then Vegas would have taken him (thus trading Neal for Jarnkrok) but maybe he assumed they would take Sissons instead in that scenario.
Now, I know what you're thinking. Why not just protect Sissons then?
Here's why: "Oh my God we just traded Neal for Sissons!"
Safe to assume that Ellis is given the permanent "A" with Neal gone. What if Fisher retires on top of that?
C - Josi
A - Ellis
A - Johansen
My question is this- let's play GM- what if the price to avoid losing Neal was Sissons + at least a 1st round draft pick. (I think it would have been at least that much, if not more). If you are the GM would you do that?? What about for Jarnkrok?
much like poile, you guys are drastically overthinking this. we in fact did choose to 'trade' neal for a much less valuable jarnkrok. it was a bad hockey decision in terms of relative worth. period.
I think when you take all things into account, you're right, it's not a black and white decision. But, the perception that Neal is a more valuable hockey player than Jarnkrok, taking nothing else into account, isn't the worst opinion in the world. I do believe Neal is quite easily a more valuable player. Again, taking nothing else into account.I respect your opinion probably more than anyone on this board but I just do not think that it is that simple- a cut and dried, black and white issue/decision that should have been easy to make.
A lot of factors in play that I went into a little bit above.
If you think it is, then my simple question would be- why did we do it? It is not just about Poile- this is an organizational decision. We have the GM of the year, we have a highly respected assistant GM who is about to become a GM himself. We have one of the top head coaches in the league, a guy who may be in the hall of fame someday. We have all of these great hockey minds and together, collectively, they chose to go this route. If it is such an easy decision, then why did they do it?
I can't get the link on my computer, but the Preds FB page shared a video of Poile and the description says "GM David Poile discusses the loss of James Neal and how players like Colton Sissons and Pontus Aberg need to step up now"
I think when you take all things into account, you're right, it's not a black and white decision. But, the perception that Neal is a more valuable hockey player than Jarnkrok, taking nothing else into account, isn't the worst opinion in the world. I do believe Neal is quite easily a more valuable player. Again, taking nothing else into account.
I could definitely see the argument that Neal and Jarnkrok have similar value. Contract status and age play a big part in that. 1 year of a 30 year old, 2nd line winger = 5 years of a 26 year old, 3rd line center?
Nashville loses this "trade" in the short term, but is probably better off in the long term. A trade like this is never easy for fans to swallow. We want to be better now.
Again, still would have preferred Neal, just trying to see Poile's POV. Going to the SCF brings certain expectations for the following year, which now might be tough to fill.
If Jarnkrok was a good third line center I'd generally agree with this.
He isn't. Mediocre at best. I like having him around but he's so easily replaceable.
I think Ellis being our best defender for much of the season and the first couple playoff series sealed the 4-4-1 decision. Not protecting him would have been a significantly worse decision than letting Neal go was.My personal choice (barely) would have been to go the 7-3-1 route and not protect Ellis ( I'm sure he would have been chosen, but i have some doubts about whether his body can hold up long term in the nhl). I think the role that Ellis plays in taking the same sort of shots that Shea Weber used to take played into the decision to go the 8-1 route because a huge revamping of the playing style was not needed.
That elite shooting ability that Neal has is the rarest skill in the NHL. Players have made careers with only that skill and nothing else (eg. Arnott). But over players like Arnott, Neal is a decent skater, pretty physical, a good forechecher, and is good at anticipating passes. The only way this makes sense is if Poile knows some information for which we are not privy. I wonder whether Poile approached Neal and asked for a reasonable extension in exchange for protecting and was rebuffed. Maybe Neal really wants a big payday for his last contract, but if so, he would have been highly motivated this coming season.
On the negative side is Neal's contract and his propensity to take bone headed penalties.
If Neal's money ends up going to a very good number 2 center, i can live with this. If not, i will be profoundly disappointed.