Confirmed Trade: Calgary will receive a 3rd round pick from Edmonton in the Lucic/Neal trade

[DingDongCharlie]

Man the immaturity in this thread.

Yes it’s only a 3rd and yes I think every Oilers fan would have been more than ok with the trade on day one even if the pick wasn’t conditional. Lucic needed to go. That doesn’t make prorating the stats right. Didn’t Lucic have 5 goals to Neal’s zero since the New Year? Isn’t it possible Neal wouldn’t have scored 2 more goals had the season restarted to finish instead of the play in. Could Lucic have scored a few and Neal none. Anything was possible. Nobody is losing sleep over a 3rd rounder but there’s legitimate grounds to question the decision.

 

[Dan Kelly]

Lol looking like closer to a 2nd

ya, no ! the Oilers 3rd rounder, which they can still keep if they choose to and send the 2021 3rd rounder instead, was going to be around the mid 3rd, #82 !

 

[uncleben]

That’s bullcrap. It sets a precedent. Who knows if he got back & suffered a season ending injury.

The whole situation sucks for teams involved in this scenario. Whatever the decision is, it is going to piss a team but you’d be better serve to make the decision that doesn’t leave interpretation (pro-rated stats) vs reality (criteria not met, no compensation).

It is a sloppery road NHL is going in.

Precedent for what?




Both teams knew the NHL had a solution if they couldn't come to a deal. They didn't come to a deal. Every other set of teams were giving the same parameters and came to their own consensuses.

The NHL felt the condition was nearly satisfied (Neal had completed 90% of his mark, and Lucic was not on the conditional pace with Neal). Instead of just handing the pick to CGY, they gave EDM the benefit of choosing when they'd prefer to move it.



Some people are acting like there's some giant conspiracy.
And I still don't get what this could possibly set a precedent for... conditional trades in another pandemic?

 

[Patagonia]

Man the immaturity in this thread.

Yes it’s only a 3rd and yes I think every Oilers fan would have been more than ok with the trade on day one even if the pick wasn’t conditional. Lucic needed to go. That doesn’t make prorating the stats right. Didn’t Lucic have 5 goals to Neal’s zero since the New Year? Isn’t it possible Neal wouldn’t have scored 2 more goals had the season restarted to finish instead of the play in. Could Lucic have scored a few and Neal none. Anything was possible. Nobody is losing sleep over a 3rd rounder but there’s legitimate grounds to question the decision.

Oilers benefited with 4 of 6 selections of 1st OA. They didn't change the rules and could have another if they blow this series. Whining about unfair, it's only a 3rd round pick and Oilers already won the deal by dumping an immovable player.

 

[GAMO1992]

As a Flames fan, we take those.
BUT as a hockey fan this is incredibly confusing, and I really don't think is the correct call here. Using Pro-rated stats is verrrrrrry sketchy. There was 2 conditions on the pick, 1 was met, the other was not. Therefore, the pick should not have been moved to us. End of Story.
OR, they could have altered it to include the play in series like other conditions have been altered, but didn't which makes it even more sketchy.
I know it's only a 3rd, and while a 3rd isn't inherently huge, it's just a bad look on the league to make a call like that, IMHO. If the shoe was on the other foot I would be quite upset as well.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Neal scored last night. If he scores again than this is pretty much a moot point IMO.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

It’s only a 3rd round pick. Is it really that big of a deal?

 

[The Nuge]

Precedent for what?




Both teams knew the NHL had a solution if they couldn't come to a deal. They didn't come to a deal. Every other set of teams were giving the same parameters and came to their own consensuses.

The NHL felt the condition was nearly satisfied (Neal had completed 90% of his mark, and Lucic was not on the conditional pace with Neal). Instead of just handing the pick to CGY, they gave EDM the benefit of choosing when they'd prefer to move it.



Some people are acting like there's some giant conspiracy.
And I still don't get what this could possibly set a precedent for... conditional trades in another pandemic?

Precedent for teams to come back on other conditions that weren’t met, and claim they should be based on “x”. If a player gets injured and doesn’t get to play, there’s going to be a GM that’s arguing based on Neal getting prorated to 28 goals instead of the 19 he scored, that they should still get the pick.

There was a really simple solution. Move the condition to next year, and see if it’s met or not. But the NHL has its head so far up its ass that they decided to just ignore the actual conditions of the deal. I’d love to see where it was agreed that Neal had to play 82 games or the goals would be prorated.

I don’t really care about the pick in the sense that a 3rd was easily worth the price between them, but Neal was playing through injuries, and could have been shut down any day. There’s a good chance he wasn’t getting 2 more goals even if the season finished. At the end of the day, there was a very specific set of circumstances in the trade and they weren’t met. If Holland wants to contest this decision, there’s no grounds for it to be upheld.

It’s only a 3rd round pick. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yes. Because the conditions weren’t met, and the NHL decided to make us give up a pick anyways. If Neal scored 21 goals, you wouldn’t hear a single Oiler fan complain about giving the pick up. But Bettman decided to just ignore the contract. Even if the ruling was a reasonable compromise like we give up a 5th instead of a 3rd, you probably wouldn’t see anyone having an issue with it.

The fact a large percentage of Flames fans think this is the wrong decision should indicate the issue. No matter what team this happened to, the fanbase would be furious, and anyone that tells them self otherwise isn’t being honest.

 

[DFF]

Precedent for teams to come back on other conditions that weren’t met, and claim they should be based on “x”. If a player gets injured and doesn’t get to play, there’s going to be a GM that’s arguing based on Neal getting prorated to 28 goals instead of the 19 he scored, that they should still get the pick.

There was a really simple solution. Move the condition to next year, and see if it’s met or not. But the NHL has its head so far up its ass that they decided to just ignore the actual conditions of the deal. I’d love to see where it was agreed that Neal had to play 82 games or the goals would be prorated.

I don’t really care about the pick in the sense that a 3rd was easily worth the price between them, but Neal was playing through injuries, and could have been shut down any day. There’s a good chance he wasn’t getting 2 more goals even if the season finished. At the end of the day, there was a very specific set of circumstances in the trade and they weren’t met. If Holland wants to contest this decision, there’s no grounds for it to be upheld.




Yes. Because the conditions weren’t met, and the NHL decided to make us give up a pick anyways. If Neal scored 21 goals, you wouldn’t hear a single Oiler fan complain about giving the pick up. But Bettman decided to just ignore the contract. Even if the ruling was a reasonable compromise like we give up a 5th instead of a 3rd, you probably wouldn’t see anyone having an issue with it.

The fact a large percentage of Flames fans think this is the wrong decision should indicate the issue. No matter what team this happened to, the fanbase would be furious, and anyone that tells them self otherwise isn’t being honest.

Yeah covid happens all the time...we have rules for them, no need to compromise.

 

[uncleben]

Precedent for teams to come back on other conditions that weren’t met, and claim they should be based on “x”. If a player gets injured and doesn’t get to play, there’s going to be a GM that’s arguing based on Neal getting prorated to 28 goals instead of the 19 he scored, that they should still get the pick.

That's pretty easy to shut down if any team tries to pull that...

"The results weren't what I expected! I want my trade restructured!"
-"Well, was there a global pandemic that shut down the entire league?"

A player getting injured (even off-ice injuries) is an assumed risk when you take on that contract. A global closure does not set a precedent for anything in a non-COVID League

The extreme nature under which these restructurings happened extenuates them, not makes them an exemplar.

 

[abo9]

Maybe im alone but that is the right way to call it. Clearly he would have made it. Edmonton still won the trade by a mile

Not a fan of either team but it's pretty BS. At the pace he was scoring you'd expect him to score about 3-4 goals in the last 11 games of the season, 2 goals is low, but far from a "lock":

• 7 of Neal's 19 goals were scored in 2 games.
• Neal scored 12 goals in the first 18 games. 7 in the next 37 games then?
• On the other hand, Lucic was scoring "a little more" in the back half of the season. Who's to say he would not have score 3-4 and get to 11-12 goals?

It's gonna be forgotten by next week though

 

[zar]

I’ll say it again, this decision was bush... regardless of the circumstances, the conditions were not met. They should have written in another condition for a early termination of the season.... yeah, I know it’s unprecedented, but a good lawyer would win this case in court 99/100 times.

In the spirit of this ruling, I feel the Mike Green trade with Detroit, for a 4th, should be reviewed. He opted out due to COVID 19... an option that would not have been known at the time of the trade. We all know the Oilers acquired this aging Dman for the stretch run and the playoffs without any intent of re-signing.

 

[The Nuge]

That's pretty easy to shut down if any team tries to pull that...

"The results weren't what I expected! I want my trade restructured!"
-"Well, was there a global pandemic that shut down the entire league?"

A player getting injured (even off-ice injuries) is an assumed risk when you take on that contract. A global closure does not set a precedent for anything in a non-COVID League

The extreme nature under which these restructurings happened extenuates them, not makes them an exemplar.

That’s your opinion. I doubt all 31 GMs, all of the owners in the league, and all the staff at the NHL are of the same mindset. Especially Ken Holland and Daryl Katz who just got screwed by Gary Bettman playing make believe

Yeah covid happens all the time...we have rules for them, no need to compromise.

There’s always going to be something that could happen, and Bettman just ruled that you can go back and ignore the terms of a deal. It doesn’t need to be Covid.

Anyone who’s acting like this is a reasonable outcome is lying to themselves that they wouldn’t be furious if this happened to their team.

 

[Bond]

There’s always going to be something that could happen, and Bettman just ruled that you can go back and ignore the terms of a deal. It doesn’t need to be Covid.

No, but it has to prematurely end a season

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Neal scored last night. If he scores again than this is pretty much a moot point IMO.

I’d agree with this reasoning. Least if he does it makes in more in line with the situation like Campbell in Toronto

 

[McShogun99]

Losing a 3rd round pick isn't a big deal when you're drafting Lafrenierre with your 1st round pick.

At least we got rid of Lucic and Neal actually provided value to the club. The real wasted pick was the 4th for 20 minutes of Green.

 

[Pointteen]

That comes in real handy with the picks we pissed away on Forbort and Gustafsson

Highly doubt Neal had 2 goals left in him this season tbh

think he’s got one more?

 

[Pointteen]

I’d agree with this reasoning. Least if he does it makes in more in line with the situation like Campbell in Toronto

so let him score twice in the prelims before making a ruling.


He just did it though. 21 goals.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Yeah he just scored his 21st goal of the season. Don’t care about the technicalities. He scored 21

 

[Pointteen]

Yeah he just scored his 21st goal of the season. Don’t care about the technicalities. He scored 21

the ruling shiuld be made now then.

 

[Remember2004]

Precedent for teams to come back on other conditions that weren’t met, and claim they should be based on “x”. If a player gets injured and doesn’t get to play, there’s going to be a GM that’s arguing based on Neal getting prorated to 28 goals instead of the 19 he scored, that they should still get the pick.

There was a really simple solution. Move the condition to next year, and see if it’s met or not. But the NHL has its head so far up its ass that they decided to just ignore the actual conditions of the deal. I’d love to see where it was agreed that Neal had to play 82 games or the goals would be prorated.

I don’t really care about the pick in the sense that a 3rd was easily worth the price between them, but Neal was playing through injuries, and could have been shut down any day. There’s a good chance he wasn’t getting 2 more goals even if the season finished. At the end of the day, there was a very specific set of circumstances in the trade and they weren’t met. If Holland wants to contest this decision, there’s no grounds for it to be upheld.




Yes. Because the conditions weren’t met, and the NHL decided to make us give up a pick anyways. If Neal scored 21 goals, you wouldn’t hear a single Oiler fan complain about giving the pick up. But Bettman decided to just ignore the contract. Even if the ruling was a reasonable compromise like we give up a 5th instead of a 3rd, you probably wouldn’t see anyone having an issue with it.

The fact a large percentage of Flames fans think this is the wrong decision should indicate the issue. No matter what team this happened to, the fanbase would be furious, and anyone that tells them self otherwise isn’t being honest.

It's not really the choice of the teams to "come back" on conditions. They didn't have a say in this matter so how can a precedent be set? Sure, the NHL can set that but like posters mentioned above, how often does something like COVID happen?

 

[The Nuge]

It's not really the choice of the teams to "come back" on conditions. They didn't have a say in this matter so how can a precedent be set? Sure, the NHL can set that but like posters mentioned above, how often does something like COVID happen?

How did they not have a say? Trelliving complained to Bettman that he wanted the conditions ignored, and to be awarded the pick anyways, and Bettman obliged. Proving that if you whine enough, you can renegotiate terms. That’s a dangerous precedent

 

[McVespa99]

Why is everyone complaining when y’all said this trade was a “win” for the Oilers?

2 reasons. Its not right, and the trade is an even bigger win without the 3rd,

 

[Skolman]

Why is everyone complaining when y’all said this trade was a “win” for the Oilers?

Oh I don't know, maybe because the conditions weren't met?

 

[ChaoticOrange]

whatever, it'll be a 2021 3rd rounder and I'd imagine we'll make a couple small deals to replenish picks this season anyway. I think it's a stupid ruling but I'm over it.

2 goals in 2 playoff games is worth a third rounder to me every day of the week.