Confirmed with Link: James Neal traded to Nashville for Patric Hornqvist and Nick Spaling

[Michael8771*]

I wasn't offering up logic. I was pointing out the obvious answer to the riddle you were perplexed by. Yet arguing that Neal should receive the same benefit of doubt that Crosby has is even more perplexing. I was simply showing you the obvious error of your post and providing an answer. Not giving out logic or reason. There is a difference.

Don't you think the best player in the world should have the most accountability in regards to producing when it matters most? I mean he's paid an astronomical amount, yes? Logic would suggest he should contribute far more in the PO's than he did. Yet I've seen little backlash come his way. Neal however, well he disappeared, he soiled the bed, he's a no show. It just seems rather easy to bury him and give Crosby a free pass. I would think Crosby should carry more the load than Neal, but again that's applying logic to the matter, something not very prevalent here.

 

[madinsomniac]

I 100% disagree with anyone who thinks this was a good move.

It was a shortsighted overpayment for a player that while worthwhile and needed, is not even close to the value Neal brought to the team. neal was a pure scorer. he had a shot that opponants had to respect. he was able to create on his own, though he did too often let Malkin do all the work then take the shot... that's a coaching issue. you don't move a guy who in 2 of his 4 postseasons was about a point per game player because he crapped the bed in the latest one. If he was a lockerroom cancer as some suggest, fine... you still don't sell him nickel on the dollar... you take the best offer then use the assets garnered to make the other moves you need. ... even if Hornqvist pots 40 next year, that doesn't mean his current value was near neals... The pens should have at least held out for a better deal even if that deal was just salary eaten or a different player whos salary was bad taken with neal... this was a dump plain and simple.... and yet again the pens lose an asset for less than its real value.

If we were desperate for a netfront presence and traded Crosby to get one... filling the need doesn't offset the talent value lost...... on a team that has few finishers, we now have one less... traded for a guy who is older, smaller and almost as expensive with a pretty crappy shot... this was a catastrophic failure from a hockey standpoint. They should have added to him to at least make a lateral move... this was a downgrade pure and simple

 

[KIRK]

Even if that's the case, we still shafted ourselves. I don't care how good of a 3rd liner Spaling is... with Sutter and more importantly Dupuis who is likely untradeable right now, we got an asset... that we didn't need and has no upside. Nashville has 3rd line players with upside... why the hell didn't we get one of them!? JR needed to get a 3rd piece (or a better + instead of Spaling) who had some upside. He didn't. And for that reason, we lost this trade.

So, tell me what deal he HAD to make, because it was pretty clear that Neal was going.

PAP and a 1st, like Colorado is alleged to have offered . . . well, the 1st is better than Spaling, I suppose, by Sid's 30th birthday.

I'm sorry, but you're simplifying something that isn't that easy.

It's not just the return in a bubble. It's also the immediacy of the return. Geno is closer to 30 than he is to 25. This couldn't be a futures deal.

Like the Kapanen pick, it was the safe trade. A legit top six guy who fits a need. A legit bottom six guy who fits a definite role and is an upgrade.

Now, maybe in 4 years, another deal might have had more upside. Or maybe not. I'm just not sure I'd want to gamble another few years of Sid's and Geno's primes to find out.

 

[madinsomniac]

... Maybe we are trying to tank for McDavid...lol Crosby starts getting headaches again and we will know....

 

[lastcupever75]

It's because you're focusing on the "35-45" goal scorer part of his attributes.

What you failed to remember is...

• He takes dumb penalties at crucial moments. so do sid and geno
  
• Apparently he was prickly to staffers, media and TEAM MATES...that last part, probably a huge reason. which teammates? was it to MAf after another goalie blunder? then good? so we traded a 40 G scorer and someone who works well with malkin because he wasnt nice to dan potash and the traveling secretary?
  
• Was starting to create more for himself, but it was in flashes, not consistent enough, likely could have been but it seemed like he would revert back to his old ways for long periods. do you think hornquist will create chances for himself?
  
• Disappeared during big games. see above with sid,
  
• His stupidity for the Marchand suspension, I mean really..how dumb was that?
  BFD. we saw a guy that gets upset and tries to give back what he, sid, and geno get on a nightly basis. i guess thats against country club rules
  
• There were also various moments he did something stupid but wasn't tagged for it as badly as the Marchand incident. But he was creating a pattern throughout the season.
  you've read some of the main board's issues with sid and geno, right?
  
  
  
  
  In any case...I'll gladly take a player that:
  i'll take a player like that too. not for neal. sutter and maybe a D prospect or 2 where we seem to be "loaded"
  
  • Plays in the dirty areas.
  • Has a quick release.
  • Is not afraid to drop his gloves if need be.
    are you talking about hornquist here?? hockeyfights.com lists him with zero fights in his career? maybe i didnt look in the right area.
    
  • Plays a solid 2-way game.
  • Is a consistent 20 goal scorer and good for 50+ pts, with a mediocre center and very little to no support offensively.
  • Plays a lot like Kunitz of 2009, the Kunitz we fondly remember and affectionaly called "Kunikaze."
    from some accounts, he doesnt forecheck/hit like kunitz. so i dont see the kamikazee element
    
  • He IS the type of winger this team needs more of. One that will battle for every bit of space on the ice and will go to the high traffic areas to score. He's not only a perfect fit for Crosby, he would be a great fit for Malkin. Just like how Kunitz was with Geno, he would be as well.

• 
  
  like the player, dont like what we gave up. plus we dealt from a weaker area of the roster to try to improve and who really knows at this point if we did or not

 

[KIRK]

Paid plenty attention. When I quoted you first, you were talking about Neal making Malkin better;



After mentioning Malkin did just fine (and maybe even better) in other (and arguably worse) circumstances you pivoted instantly. Your next post, in case you forgot, started like this:



This is the internet. You don't get to pretend you didn't say things that are recorded less than two pages ago.

Edit, for clarification, because you might need it: going from "Neal helped Malkin" to "well what about Sid" is not staying on point. Unless you perceive time differently than the rest of us. In which case: congratulations, because that's awesome.

 

[stardog]

Unless the addition of Hornqvist and Spaling leads to us getting another cup than it will be a failure. I would argue with Michael and say that James Neal gave us the chance to get towards that over a combination of players that could both be complete busts in our system.

People like to harp on players like Orpik and Adams being no part of our line-up, but obviously our best winger was just moved because of off ice issues. Half of this forum wants to trade for Evander Kane who is essentially cut from the same cloth as Neal, only he doesn't score as much and gets healthy scratched by multiple coaches.

I would argue that to stand pat and remain status quo would be a failure. As we knew for a fact that we weren't going to win a cup with the same group from last year.
I would also argue that a better team...a better playoff team...one who gives us a better chance and who moves us closer to the goal of winning the cup would make this acquisition a solid move. If it is simply a step in the right direction or a piece which brings us closer to completing the puzzle then I am okay with that. We obviously still need to add pieces so no one is saying that this move equals a cup. But if it is a part of the final tinkering that gets it done then I'm all for it.
And I am truly of the belief that it is a step in the right direction. And I'm fine with that.

 

[Riptide]

A while back, when talking about Nashville and Neal, I said I wanted a replacement top-6 winger and a young top-9 winger coming back. I said Hornqvist and Wilson for Neal. We got Spaling and Hornqvist for Neal. At first, I thought this was a terrible trade. However, after thinking it over, I actually like it a lot. I'll miss Neal, but I won't miss him nearly as much when I see Hornqvist scoring a ton of dirty goals right from in the crease. Aka, what we wanted Neal to do when we got him.

It is. Wilson>Spaling. Wilson can do most of what Spaling can... and has upside.

 

[Michael8771*]

Paid plenty attention. When I quoted you first, you were talking about Neal making Malkin better;



After mentioning Malkin did just fine (and maybe even better) in other (and arguably worse) circumstances you pivoted instantly. Your next post, in case you forgot, started like this:



This is the internet. You don't get to pretend you didn't say things that are recorded less than two pages ago.

I know it's the internet, what, you think you have a eureka moment, like you caught me or something?

If you're gonna say that Malkin had a 113 point season and then when he played with Neal had a 109 point season, that doesn't prove Neal wasn't his most impactful wing. Neal is one winger who did exceedingly well on Geno's line. Nothing you posted there detracts from that. And again Geno himself said Neal was his best wing, so there you go. I'll believe him far more than a poster who thought he ''got me''..

 

[KIRK]

I would argue that to stand pat and remain status quo would be a failure. As we knew for a fact that we weren't going to win a cup with the same group from last year.
I would also argue that a better team...a better playoff team...one who gives us a better chance and who moves us closer to the goal of winning the cup would make this acquisition a solid move. If it is simply a step in the right direction or a piece which brings us closer to completing the puzzle then I am okay with that. We obviously still need to add pieces so no one is saying that this move equals a cup. But if it is a part of the final tinkering that gets it done then I'm all for it.
And I am truly of the belief that it is a step in the right direction. And I'm fine with that.

 

[KIRK]

I know it's the internet, what, you think you have a eureka moment, like you caught me or something?

If you're gonna say that Malkin had a 113 point season and then when he played with Neal had a 109 point season, that doesn't prove Neal wasn't his most impactful wing. Neal is one winger who did exceedingly well on Geno's line. Nothing you posted there detracts from that. And again Geno himself said Neal was his best wing, so there you go. I'll believe him far more than a poster who thought he ''got me''..

And Sid said he likes playing with Dupuis. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[stardog]

Don't you think the best player in the world should have the most accountability in regards to producing when it matters most? I mean he's paid an astronomical amount, yes? Logic would suggest he should contribute far more in the PO's than he did. Yet I've seen little backlash come his way. Neal however, well he disappeared, he soiled the bed, he's a no show. It just seems rather easy to bury him and give Crosby a free pass. I would think Crosby should carry more the load than Neal, but again that's applying logic to the matter, something not very prevalent here.

Again...I wasn't excusing Crosby's performance. I was merely pointing out that it is "logical" to assume that the best player in the world should receive the benefit of the doubt for his off performance more so than James Neal.
They should both be criticized. Your post asked why one should receive a free pass and the answer would be that for the best player in the world his performance was an obvious anomaly. In other words, because he is the best player in the world, it shouldn't be a common occurrence. The same can't be said for Neal.

 

[Michael8771*]

I would argue that to stand pat and remain status quo would be a failure. As we knew for a fact that we weren't going to win a cup with the same group from last year.
I would also argue that a better team...a better playoff team...one who gives us a better chance and who moves us closer to the goal of winning the cup would make this acquisition a solid move. If it is simply a step in the right direction or a piece which brings us closer to completing the puzzle then I am okay with that. We obviously still need to add pieces so no one is saying that this move equals a cup. But if it is a part of the final tinkering that gets it done then I'm all for it.
And I am truly of the belief that it is a step in the right direction. And I'm fine with that.

I'm not suggesting we do nothing. I just don't think it's prudent to trade from a position of weakness.

 

[BumFortyOne]

What PLUS?

A flip of 1st round picks.

Question: Spaling and Kapanen OR whoever the Pens would've drafted at 11 . . . which return has more impact before Sid turns 30?

You want ANOTHER Staal deal, where we've got to wait 4 years to maybe see the 'win' payoff? You want that now, given Sid's and Geno's ages?

See, this is why I'm no fan of a PAP and late 1st deal. Bigger drop off than Horny gives you, and the 1st you won't see for 3 years, if at all.

If THIS is what people mean by 'should've gotten more'-- and it's all that people have cited-- then please don't ever complain again about the state of the Pens forwards and how the team does by Sid and Geno.

EDIT: I am glad that you will reserve judgment. Honestly, it's all about the playoffs. What Hornqvist means. What maybe Spaling means. And how they fit in terms of the puzzle.

It just seems to me like a 2nd or 3rd round pick or something on that level would balance the trade out somewhat. I would have also probably rather seen the flip of 1st round picks.

A third line player could be had in free agency. Now Spaling might have some untapped potential, I don't know, but I would have probably preferred Hornqvist+futures as the return since it adds more assets that could have been retained or potentially packaged for another impact player.

I think most people aren't so upset with Hornqvist back as the main piece, but that maybe there could have been more coming back in return. Now, we have no idea what else was offered, but if you had offered me this deal before today I would have definitely said there needed to be another piece coming back from Nashville in the deal.

That being said, what's done is done now so I'm willing to wait and see what sort of impact Spaling makes. A Spaling-Sutter-Dupuis third line certainly seems like it should be an effective line, if not particularly physical. It will be interesting to see if Johnston will try to use them as the primary matchup line against other teams' top lines.

I do like Hornqvist and what he will bring both on the powerplay and in the playoffs in terms of grinding and scoring dirty goals, two things that Neal wasn't particularly adept at and which should be a boon when the whistles get swallowed in the postseason.

Hoping we can dump Dupuis and sign one of Vrbata or Hemsky (in addition to Kulemin) and roll:

Kunitz-Crosby-Vrbata/Hemsky
Kulemin-Malkin-Hornqvist
Spaling-Sutter-Bennett

 

[KIRK]

It is. Wilson>Spaling. Wilson can do most of what Spaling can... and has upside.

24 year old Colin Wilson, with 5 years pro experience and 33 points last year, has upside.

25 year old Nick Spaling with 5 years pro experience and 32 points last year, has maxed out.

Um, ok then, moving on . . .

 

[Michael8771*]

Again...I wasn't excusing Crosby's performance. I was merely pointing out that it is "logical" to assume that the best player in the world should receive the benefit of the doubt for his off performance more so than James Neal.
They should both be criticized. Your post asked why one should receive a free pass and the answer would be that for the best player in the world his performance was an obvious anomaly. In other words, because he is the best player in the world, it shouldn't be a common occurrence. The same can't be said for Neal.

But with Crosby, it's been a common occurrence over the past four series. And no I don't think he should receive a pass more than Neal. Sid should have FAR more expectations placed upon him. Thus he should produce much better. That's logical.

 

[Fraction Jackson]

I know it's the internet, what, you think you have a eureka moment, like you caught me or something?

If you're gonna say that Malkin had a 113 point season and then when he played with Neal had a 109 point season, that doesn't prove Neal wasn't his most impactful wing. Neal is one winger who did exceedingly well on Geno's line. Nothing you posted there detracts from that. And again Geno himself said Neal was his best wing, so there you go. I'll believe him far more than a poster who thought he ''got me''..

You're aware that's also not what I was saying, right? As a reminder - this is also recorded for posterity, on these forums, as you might note - this is how I ended that initial post:

It does not necessarily, logically, follow that Neal was not a good fit for Malkin to put us over the top and win in the playoffs due to the above. But, similarly, your premise doesn't work either - nothing proves that Neal was the ideal fit for Malkin, except for regular season points, which, as you may note, have nothing to do with the playoffs, either.

These are words, that were typed, and posted, on an internet forum, which saves these words for other people to go back and find. I know this because I just went back a couple pages and found what I actually said, which is a different thing than what you said I was saying.

To clarify: I was not saying that Malkin having better seasons with other players meant that Neal didn't do well with Malkin, and that Malkin didn't do well with Neal. What I said was that because Malkin had a really good season playing with Neal, did not automatically mean that Neal was therefore logically the best fit to play with Malkin. You can tell that was what I said, because those are the words that I wrote earlier that I quoted above and you can go back and find a couple pages ago.

You're not doing yourself any favors.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I 100% disagree with anyone who thinks this was a good move.

It was a shortsighted overpayment for a player that while worthwhile and needed, is not even close to the value Neal brought to the team. neal was a pure scorer. he had a shot that opponants had to respect. he was able to create on his own, though he did too often let Malkin do all the work then take the shot... that's a coaching issue. you don't move a guy who in 2 of his 4 postseasons was about a point per game player because he crapped the bed in the latest one. If he was a lockerroom cancer as some suggest, fine... you still don't sell him nickel on the dollar... you take the best offer then use the assets garnered to make the other moves you need. ... even if Hornqvist pots 40 next year, that doesn't mean his current value was near neals... The pens should have at least held out for a better deal even if that deal was just salary eaten or a different player whos salary was bad taken with neal... this was a dump plain and simple.... and yet again the pens lose an asset for less than its real value.

If we were desperate for a netfront presence and traded Crosby to get one... filling the need doesn't offset the talent value lost...... on a team that has few finishers, we now have one less... traded for a guy who is older, smaller and almost as expensive with a pretty crappy shot... this was a catastrophic failure from a hockey standpoint. They should have added to him to at least make a lateral move... this was a downgrade pure and simple

Woah, woah... Pump the brakes. When the Hell did Neal ever create on his own? Neal is the very definition of a leech. I think a lot of people are going to be astonished to see Neal's numbers when he's centered by Fisher or Jarnkrok.

I'm picking up a "I don't know anything about Hornqvist" vibe here. If Hornqvist scores 40g, he's not as good as Neal?

Take off the black and gold colored glasses. Hornqvist is a much better hockey player than James Neal, and he's scored 30g with nobody within the same galaxy as Sid talent-wise, all the while playing the type of style that this team desperately lacks. He's the type of player we need in order to be successful in the playoffs, and he's young enough to be around for the long haul. I don't get everyone's gripe.

It is. Wilson>Spaling. Wilson can do most of what Spaling can... and has upside.

Maybe this was the best deal offered for Neal? If Wilson was on the table, I don't think there's any way in Hell Rutherford turns that down in favor of Spaling.

-edit- (Not directed at you, Riptide) As for PA Parenteau and a 1st, no thanks. Hornqvist is much better than Parenteau, and the 1st doesn't help us for at least two seasons.

 

[KIRK]

It just seems to me like a 2nd or 3rd round pick or something on that level would balance the trade out somewhat. I would have also probably rather seen the flip of 1st round picks.

A third line player could be had in free agency. Now Spaling might have some untapped potential, I don't know, but I would have probably preferred Hornqvist+futures as the return since it adds more assets that could have been retained or potentially packaged for another impact player.

I think most people aren't so upset with Hornqvist back as the main piece, but that maybe there could have been more coming back in return. Now, we have no idea what else was offered, but if you had offered me this deal before today I would have definitely said there needed to be another piece coming back from Nashville in the deal.

That being said, what's done is done now so I'm willing to wait and see what sort of impact Spaling makes. A Spaling-Sutter-Dupuis third line certainly seems like it should be an effective line, if not particularly physical. It will be interesting to see if Johnston will try to use them as the primary matchup line against other teams' top lines.

I do like Hornqvist and what he will bring both on the powerplay and in the playoffs in terms of grinding and scoring dirty goals, two things that Neal wasn't particularly adept at and which should be a boon when the whistles get swallowed in the postseason.

Hoping we can dump Dupuis and sign one of Vrbata or Hemsky (in addition to Kulemin) and roll:

Kunitz-Crosby-Vrbata/Hemsky
Kulemin-Malkin-Hornqvist
Spaling-Sutter-Bennett

Totally cool. I don't see the 2nd or 3rd as a deal breaker. Maybe it becomes a 3rd liner in 4 years, but nothing more. A flip of 1sts. Maybe, in 4 years, the #11 overall is worth more than Spaling and Kapanen. What about before Sid's 30th birthday?

Not arguing with you per se. Just trying to point out the consideration here. What Shero got for Staal was more than what NY offered (reportedly Gaborik and a small plus) in the long run . . . perhaps. What would've been a bigger help the last two years?

I think you have to ask that question here, and I think it becomes more pressing given that Sid and Geno are another 2 years older, which was the point I was making to Riptide when saying it's not as simple as saying 'we could've gotten more' without asking what 'more' means and more importantly when the contribution might have come.

 

[stardog]

I 100% disagree with anyone who thinks this was a good move.

It was a shortsighted overpayment for a player that while worthwhile and needed, is not even close to the value Neal brought to the team. neal was a pure scorer. he had a shot that opponants had to respect. he was able to create on his own, though he did too often let Malkin do all the work then take the shot... that's a coaching issue. you don't move a guy who in 2 of his 4 postseasons was about a point per game player because he crapped the bed in the latest one. If he was a lockerroom cancer as some suggest, fine... you still don't sell him nickel on the dollar... you take the best offer then use the assets garnered to make the other moves you need. ... even if Hornqvist pots 40 next year, that doesn't mean his current value was near neals... The pens should have at least held out for a better deal even if that deal was just salary eaten or a different player whos salary was bad taken with neal... this was a dump plain and simple.... and yet again the pens lose an asset for less than its real value.

If we were desperate for a netfront presence and traded Crosby to get one... filling the need doesn't offset the talent value lost...... on a team that has few finishers, we now have one less... traded for a guy who is older, smaller and almost as expensive with a pretty crappy shot... this was a catastrophic failure from a hockey standpoint. They should have added to him to at least make a lateral move... this was a downgrade pure and simple

You used the word "shortsighted" and then provided a shortsighted example to prove your point.
Trading Crosby to get a net front presence is absurd. He is an obvious part of the identified core and the pieces (like Neal) around him are not. You use those pieces to create the best possible group to maximize your chances at winning the cup.
Obviously, Neal was deemed expendable. Crosby, obviously is not.
You don't have to like the trade...I understand the reasoning behind why...but the example you gave is silly and in no way justifies hating the trade from that standpoint.

 

[Michael8771*]

To clarify: I was not saying that Malkin having better seasons with other players meant that Neal didn't do well with Malkin and that Malkin didn't do well with Neal. What I said was that because Malkin had a really good season playing with Neal did not mean that Neal was therefore logically the best fit to play with Malkin. You can tell that was what I said, because those are the words that I wrote earlier that I quoted above and you can go back and find a couple pages ago.

Is that right? You think you're real lucid and profound, ok buddy. And let me reiterate that Neal was the best line mate that Geno ever had. There's ample proof to suggest that. Neal is one linemate, maybe the issue is with the 3rd wheel on the line. In fact if there's an issue logic would suggest that's where the problem lies. Not with Geno and Neal.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I would argue that to stand pat and remain status quo would be a failure. As we knew for a fact that we weren't going to win a cup with the same group from last year.
I would also argue that a better team...a better playoff team...one who gives us a better chance and who moves us closer to the goal of winning the cup would make this acquisition a solid move. If it is simply a step in the right direction or a piece which brings us closer to completing the puzzle then I am okay with that. We obviously still need to add pieces so no one is saying that this move equals a cup. But if it is a part of the final tinkering that gets it done then I'm all for it.
And I am truly of the belief that it is a step in the right direction. And I'm fine with that.

The thing is that it is hard to tell if it was mostly bad coaching, or bad team construction, that made the team fail.

You may be right that the team as presently constructed, for the most part anyways, couldn't win. But you may be wrong as well. I was looking forward to seeing how some players would do under another coach and system.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The team as constructed last year was not a legitimate contender. Babcock and Tippett couldn't have coached that team to a Cup. Bylsma was a reject, but Shero built a trashcan around Sid and Geno. Changes needed to be made, and Neal was a microcosm of this team's faults.

 

[Michael8771*]

The team as constructed last year was not a legitimate contender. Period. Babcock and Tippett couldn't have coached that team to a Cup. Bylsma was a reject, but Shero built a trashcan around Sid and Geno.

And trading our best wing makes us more a contender? Again, we traded from an area of weakness.

 

[BumFortyOne]

Totally cool. I don't see the 2nd or 3rd as a deal breaker. Maybe it becomes a 3rd liner in 4 years, but nothing more. A flip of 1sts. Maybe, in 4 years, the #11 overall is worth more than Spaling and Kapanen. What about before Sid's 30th birthday?

Not arguing with you per se. Just trying to point out the consideration here. What Shero got for Staal was more than what NY offered (reportedly Gaborik and a small plus) in the long run . . . perhaps. What would've been a bigger help the last two years?

I think you have to ask that question here, and I think it becomes more pressing given that Sid and Geno are another 2 years older, which was the point I was making to Riptide when saying it's not as simple as saying 'we could've gotten more' without asking what 'more' means and more importantly when the contribution might have come.

I just feel like a decent third liner could have been picked up in free agency. Stempniak probably could be retained for not much higher of a cap hit than I imagine Spaling will get signed for, or a flier could have been taken on guys like Booth or Setoguchi who both might have come cheap on show me type contracts.

So instead of picking up a 3rd liner who may have some upside, I'd probably rather have just gotten back futures along with Hornqvist. I agree that this is absolutely a win now team that shouldn't be afraid to move futures to improve the team now, but it would have been smart in this deal to stock up on some assets that could have been put to use later to improve the team.