Career Value's Neely-Lucic

[markrander87]

Im well aware that Lucic will never come close to posting goal scoring totals like Neely did (Neely is one of my favourite players of all time). But in terms of career value Neely's career was cut short due to knee injuries. He finished his career with 12 seasons played 726 GP 694 Points 1241 PIM and 5 All-Star Games. The power forward style of play made him a fan favourite in Boston.

Lucic in his first couple seasons has been compared to a Neely, but more for his style of play then actual stats. Lucic started his career as a 19 year-old and could have a 16-18 year career (Barring major Injury, like Neely) IF this holds true, who would you think would hold more career value?

Neely for 12 years
Lucic for 16-18 years

Click to read more...

 

[revolverjgw]

Lucic is good and useful, but 16-18 years of being good and useful isn't going be equal to Neely's huge impact. Unless Lucic breaks out like Neely eventually did, and I can't see that happening, forget it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Neely is a Hall of Famer, Lucic isn't even the 3rd most valuable player on his team.

I really like Looch, but these comparisons are totally unfair to him. He isn't the next Neely, he's the first Lucic and that's all the Bruins are asking of him.

 

[markrander87]

Neely is a Hall of Famer, Lucic isn't even the 3rd most valuable player on his team.

I really like Looch, but these comparisons are totally unfair to him. He isn't the next Neely, he's the first Lucic and that's all the Bruins are asking of him.

I guess I wasnt clear enough in my description. I would never think that Lucic could ever be the talent Neely was. Im just asking would people perfer quantitiy over quantity is sort of what im getting at.

If you were a GM right now and you could pick Neely for 12 seasons or Lucic for 18 seasons who would you pick. Is that gap that large that we would sacrifice 6 seasons or 1/3 of a player to benefit from the surperior talent of the other player?

 

[revolverjgw]

I guess I wasnt clear enough in my description. I would never think that Lucic could ever be the talent Neely was. Im just asking would people perfer quantitiy over quantity is sort of what im getting at.

If you were a GM right now and you could pick Neely for 12 seasons or Lucic for 18 seasons who would you pick. Is that gap that large that we would sacrifice 6 seasons or 1/3 of a player to benefit from the surperior talent of the other player?

It's definitely that large. Neely was/is a one-of-a-kind player. Lucic is good, but much more replaceable.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'd take Neely for five years over Lucic for infinity years.

 

[markrander87]

I guess afairer comparison would have been Lucic-Martin with the circumstances. 10 year career of Martin to 16-18 year career of Lucic

 

[tarheelhockey]

I guess I wasnt clear enough in my description. I would never think that Lucic could ever be the talent Neely was. Im just asking would people perfer quantitiy over quantity is sort of what im getting at.

If you were a GM right now and you could pick Neely for 12 seasons or Lucic for 18 seasons who would you pick. Is that gap that large that we would sacrifice 6 seasons or 1/3 of a player to benefit from the surperior talent of the other player?

Yes, absolutely. There are other players in the league who can do what Lucic does, at a very reasonable price. He is among the better of them, but not even at the All-Star level. Neely was a legend who changed the game substantially. He was irreplaceable. His quality far, far outweights any amount of quantity that Lucic could bring to the table. And I say that as a fan of Lucic.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

because of much less restricted free agency and a very early free agency age, i don't think it matters for a GM today how long lucic plays, as the likelihood of him being a career-long player for one team are slim.

these days, it's especially important that you take the player that will give you five elite years, as opposed to locking up a player beyond his UFA years (at a premium for those years) who will give you eight or more very good years. even if lucic ends up being a yearly 30 goal power forward, you'd still rather lock up 89-91 neely and his 50 goals a year. that kind of production, not to mention everything else neely brought to the table, is very hard to find, and if you're going to try to find that kind of production it'll probably $6-8 mill/year to someone to an aging and declining UFA who may never hit those heights again.

with the economics of today's NHL, it made sense for LA to give kopitar that big second contract, or for vancouver to lock up kesler longterm this year. you don't want to be in philly or new york's positions and have to give bigger dollars to lesser players like briere, drury, or gomez. if you're going to pay $6+ million, you better be giving it to an elite performer like neely, because the market for secondary stars is not much cheaper, if at all.

whereas lucic's (projected) 30 goals and physical play, while rare, are easier to come by. and while you want lucic on your team, you still need someone like neely to pull the boat, and where are you going to find another cam neely? you'll probably end up giving a max contract to someone like jeff carter (or, god forbid, dustin penner) if/when he hits unrestricted free agency, and he likely won't give you what a cam neely would have. the discounted price and added longevity of lucic doesn't outweigh what you lose.

 

[lextune]

I'd take Neely for five years over Lucic for infinity years.

^This.

...and I say it as a big Lucic fan.

I think Looch has the potential to be a 25 goal scorer, (he has a better release than many realize), and he has already been a game changing physical force at times, (last year's playoffs). But Neely was literally one of the elite players in the world during his prime. Something far more valuable than being a 25 goal scoring physical presence could ever hope to be.