Flames fans have been amongst the most ardent chanting that Lucic's contract was the worst in the league for the last 18 months to any Oiler fan that would listen.
Confirmed Trade: [CGY/EDM] James Neal for Milan Lucic (12.5% retained) and a 2020 conditional 3rd round pick Part 3
- Thread starter LT
- Start date
- Status
Flames fans have been amongst the most ardent chanting that Lucic's contract was the worst in the league for the last 18 months to any Oiler fan that would listen.
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 14,966
- 5,296
The Oilers had to take on an almost as bad contract and retain to move Lucic. Oilers' fans seem to be leaving these facts out of the debate.
As someone who followed Neal on the Knights but lost track of him after he was signed by the Flames, I have to constantly remind myself just how bad he was last season. That and his supposed attitude issues may have had a huge impact on his value.
I feel like a lot of people here are thinking about the Neal that wore a Stars, Penguins, Golden Knights or Predators jersey and ignoring just how bad the Flame was.
Hopefully he rebounds, but let’s not pretend he’s a lock for 20+ goals or 40+ points.
I feel like a lot of people here are thinking about the Neal that wore a Stars, Penguins, Golden Knights or Predators jersey and ignoring just how bad the Flame was.
Hopefully he rebounds, but let’s not pretend he’s a lock for 20+ goals or 40+ points.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,247
- 8,384
Fans criticizing the bad contract of a rival player? You don't say.
Let's also not forget that you yourself have also spent the last year telling us that Neal's contract is worse than Lucic's because of the actual dollars remaining.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,247
- 8,384
It's not a "great deal" for either team. It's two teams trying to make the best of bad situations.
Hank Plank
Registered User
I was one of them and said Lucic was about the worst player in the league. Now that he's a Flame I think the same thing.
- Jan 9, 2009
- 15,675
- 10,233
Nobody is trying to say that this is a good trade for the Flames. All they are saying is that its not the terrible trade that you and so many others are trumpeting and crowing about.What are we, a week since the trade? Flames fans still trying to justify this as a good trade for their franchise
Neal had to go. He wore out his welcome, which frankly is somewhat amazing since he only played 67 games for the Flames. Even Brouwer hung in there longer than that. Neal wasn't wanted by either the coach or management or ownership. A bag of used pucks for Neal would have been an acceptable trade for the Flames. The fact that they got a player that can play a useful role on the team is a bonus. No win... just not a huge loss. Keeping Neal on the team would have been a huge loss for the future. Addition by subtraction.
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 14,966
- 5,296
See this is the thing...Neal needs to have a heavy rebound to have a net neutral effect. He's not, currently, a massive upgrade on anything. Neal's shot was attrocious last year. His hands were Stone. He fumbled and gave up the puck constantly.
HighLifeMan
#SnowyStrong
- Feb 26, 2009
- 7,296
- 2,467
Sure.. but you also went from saying this prior to the trade..
To this.. in a matter of two weeks.
You are very much just as guilty as flip flopping on these players as the rest of us. It happens. We support our players and lambaste division rivals.. that's sports. The truths lay somewhere in between with both players.
- Jan 9, 2009
- 15,675
- 10,233
I have no problem whatsoever with this starting lineup come Oct 3 2019... even with, as so many are saying, a terrible Milan Lucic in the lineup.
This is a win for Calgary because Neal is GONE. Every line that Neal played on was worse when he was on it than when he wasn't. However, just because its a win for Calgary that doesn't mean I'm saying its a loss for Edmonton. Having Neal gone and getting a bag of used pucks for him would be a win for Calgary.
Good luck with Neal Edmonton. Hopefully for you he doesn't drag down the performance of every line that he plays for in Edmonton like he did in Calgary.
.
This is a win for Calgary because Neal is GONE. Every line that Neal played on was worse when he was on it than when he wasn't. However, just because its a win for Calgary that doesn't mean I'm saying its a loss for Edmonton. Having Neal gone and getting a bag of used pucks for him would be a win for Calgary.
Good luck with Neal Edmonton. Hopefully for you he doesn't drag down the performance of every line that he plays for in Edmonton like he did in Calgary.
Last edited:
ManofSteel55
Registered User
Give it a rest guys. Nobody here thought Neal's contract was in the same stratosphere as Lucic, Eriksson, Seabrook, Ryan, Weber before Neal was traded for Lucic. Go back to the rumour thread. You guys were calling for multiple 1st round picks or 50% retention. Some were even laughing at that. Neal's contract was bad the day it was signed, but even after one off year, it isn't Lucic contract bad.
ManofSteel55
Registered User
Calgary has a great lineup going, even the most jaded Oiler fan would admit that. Doesn't make this trade any better though.
Skolman
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2018
- 9,413
- 7,939
Some of you Flames fans are so predictable, especially you.
What on earth does the "Oilers only wished they look this good" have to do with this trade?
It's quite comical. You lose a trade in the opinion of every non-Flames fans so you figure "hey, I'll make myself feel better by throwing stones at the Oilers franchise"
I stand by that, however I think in Edmonton given the dearth of winger options Neal has a good chance of bouncing back.
The contract being less actual money did entice the Flames ownership most likely which is the point I was trying to make but no Flames fan wanted to hear it.
I don’t think any Flames fan thinks the Lucic contract is good. But Neal’s is just as bad if you’re not planning on using the buyout.
If the Oilers are going to put Neal into their top 6, the Flames may be the ones having the last laugh.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,247
- 8,384
Literally 2 posts up from your post soundwave was being called out for saying exactly what you are claiming no one here thought. So, yes some people thought it.
Skolman
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2018
- 9,413
- 7,939
blankall
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2007
- 14,966
- 5,296
Really? Most Flames fans were calling it pretty bad. It is probably the 6-8th or so worst contract in the league, and Lucic's is the 3-5th. Edmonton retained.
Technically it benefits the Flames if he has a decent year since they’ll then get the extra draft pick.
I could see him getting 20 goals. But he’s going to make his linemates work very hard on their backchecks. Because he certainly can’t.
Skolman
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2018
- 9,413
- 7,939
Oh now you want him to succeed, so when he does you can backtrack to this?
This is embarrassing, you guys changed your tune pretty quickly.
Cup or Bust
Registered User
- Oct 17, 2017
- 3,873
- 3,230
That is okay, Lucic does nothing defensively either, so if Neal can score 20 goals, he is a massive upgrade.
oXo Cube
Power Play Merchant
Well he put up with Looch for at least a full seasons worth of games so I don't think so.
- Jan 9, 2009
- 15,675
- 10,233
Excellent article written yesterday by Andrew Berkshire... says what people have been saying here.
Is James Neal or Milan Lucic more likely to provide spark to new team? - Sportsnet.ca
"Both players are below league average among forwards at generating shots from the net front, and both were below average at getting their scoring chances on net, but Neal remains slightly above average in actual scoring chances he fires at the net. There’s also a pretty sizeable gap between him and Lucic in each offensive category.
While a below league average playmaker, spending most of his team set up in the slot receiving passes instead, to still be hovering around league average there anyway isn’t too shabby.
Lucic meanwhile, looks like a low end third line winger offensively, or possibly even lower considering he doesn’t appear to have a standout skill that teams can exploit to create offence through him, whereas Neal does."
"Looking at the differentials, the offence Neal brings over Lucic clearly comes at a cost, as the Flames were worse by every measure when he was on the ice last season.
It’s important to note that Calgary was one of the top teams in the league in all these categories, especially in the shot quality areas, and while Neal was way below team average, for the most part his differentials on a raw scale were still positive.
Lucic, meanwhile, played on a terrible team, and most of his differentials were awful when looking at them in a raw form. But adjusted relative to teammates, he wasn’t a boat anchor on team performance overall, he was just not a contributor to goals for in any meaningful way.
Lucic’s main positive impacts were on more volume-oriented side of the ledger with shots and shot attempts, but he had essentially no impact at all on shot quality. What this means is, while he’s by no means a shiny new toy that the Flames can expect to tip the scales for them in games, he doesn’t single-handedly drag a line down either."
Is James Neal or Milan Lucic more likely to provide spark to new team? - Sportsnet.ca
"Both players are below league average among forwards at generating shots from the net front, and both were below average at getting their scoring chances on net, but Neal remains slightly above average in actual scoring chances he fires at the net. There’s also a pretty sizeable gap between him and Lucic in each offensive category.
While a below league average playmaker, spending most of his team set up in the slot receiving passes instead, to still be hovering around league average there anyway isn’t too shabby.
Lucic meanwhile, looks like a low end third line winger offensively, or possibly even lower considering he doesn’t appear to have a standout skill that teams can exploit to create offence through him, whereas Neal does."
"Looking at the differentials, the offence Neal brings over Lucic clearly comes at a cost, as the Flames were worse by every measure when he was on the ice last season.
It’s important to note that Calgary was one of the top teams in the league in all these categories, especially in the shot quality areas, and while Neal was way below team average, for the most part his differentials on a raw scale were still positive.
Lucic, meanwhile, played on a terrible team, and most of his differentials were awful when looking at them in a raw form. But adjusted relative to teammates, he wasn’t a boat anchor on team performance overall, he was just not a contributor to goals for in any meaningful way.
Lucic’s main positive impacts were on more volume-oriented side of the ledger with shots and shot attempts, but he had essentially no impact at all on shot quality. What this means is, while he’s by no means a shiny new toy that the Flames can expect to tip the scales for them in games, he doesn’t single-handedly drag a line down either."
- Jan 9, 2009
- 15,675
- 10,233
Yes.. you are right. That was immature on my part. I'm trying to do better this season and I accept your criticism and I have revised my post in light of that.
I still disagree with your's and others belief that Calgary lost the trade. As far as I'm concerned, having Neal off the team is a win for Calgary... no matter how it was done.
- Status
