MrGold
Mark Scheifele is a piece of ****
- Jan 7, 2012
- 483
- 306
Yeah but Lucic leads the league in PIMs it was a good trade for both teams
Only fools lie to themselves flames fans
I don't think any Flames fans actually like the trade. Big fail on the Flames management team in signing him and then handling his poor season. Neal wasn't a fit on the Flames from the first day they signed him
I don't think he was a poor fit at all. I think he was burned out mentally and physically. The man is clearly a top 6 forward and expecting him to pull bottom six duties is silly after signing him to that contract.I don't think any Flames fans actually like the trade. Big fail on the Flames management team in signing him and then handling his poor season. Neal wasn't a fit on the Flames from the first day they signed him
I don't think he was a poor fit at all. I think he was burned out mentally and physically. The man is clearly a top 6 forward and expecting him to pull bottom six duties is silly after signing him to that contract.
You don't give a guy a 5 year committment and then pull the plug on him after the first season when he hasn't had any real rest or recovery time over the last three years. That's ****in bush league.
Yeah but Lucic leads the league in PIMs it was a good trade for both teams
Only fools lie to themselves flames fans
Neal having an incredible season for Edmonton doesn't make the deal worse for Calgary, because Neal was terrible in Calgary. The deal is turning out to be amazing for Edmonton, but it's not worse for Calgary because of his success in Edmonton.
The only way that trade would be bad for Calgary is if Lucic is worse in a bottom-6 role than Neal or having Lucic hurts them in some way that having Neal wouldn't have hurt them.
It makes it worse because Lucic isn't an upgrade and has a worse contract.
The Flames not only sold low on Neal, they got the worst value possible and let their top rival off the hook for a previously immovable contract and served up a top 6 forward to boot.
Perhaps on the ice, Lucic isn't a downgrade on what Neal provided for Calgary but in every other way, it's a loss.
If Calgary had traded Neal out east I would agree with you but since Calgary dealt Neal to a divisional rival, then yes absolutely Neal having a great year makes this trade worse for Calgary.Neal having an incredible season for Edmonton doesn't make the deal worse for Calgary, because Neal was terrible in Calgary. The deal is turning out to be amazing for Edmonton, but it's not worse for Calgary because of his success in Edmonton.
The only way that trade would be bad for Calgary is if Lucic is worse in a bottom-6 role than Neal or having Lucic hurts them in some way that having Neal wouldn't have hurt them.
No, what matters is whether Lucic is an upgrade on what Calgary got out of Neal, not what Edmonton is getting out of Neal. Calgary ****ed up by signing Neal, and had to take Lucic to fix that error. Neal re-finding his game on a new team where he fits doesn't make that deal any worse for them.
If a team trades a 30 point player and that player explodes into a PPG player on their new team, that doesn't make the trade worse for the team that made the trade. They traded a 30 point player, whatever the player becomes beyond that is just benefiting the new team.
100% it does.Neal having an incredible season for Edmonton doesn't make the deal worse for Calgary, because Neal was terrible in Calgary. The deal is turning out to be amazing for Edmonton, but it's not worse for Calgary because of his success in Edmonton.
The only way that trade would be bad for Calgary is if Lucic is worse in a bottom-6 role than Neal or having Lucic hurts them in some way that having Neal wouldn't have hurt them.
Wait, so when the Oilers traded 60 point Hall and he turned into an MVP, why were they getting torched for trading an elite MVP caliber forward?
Furthermore, the team they traded Neal to wasn't some out of conference opponent, it was their top division rival that they not only handed a top 6 forward to but also took their worst contract from and as I said before, it's a loss because it's a worse contract for minimal at best on ice performance if that. Spin it any way you want, Calgary got hosed.
100% it does.
Flames fans claimed Neal was done, that he can't skate, that he can't shoot, that he is a defensive liability, and basically that he is useless out there and not the player he once was.
Oiler fans claimed this wasn't the case, and that he will bounce back in Edmonton after literally only 1 down year where he had a number of things not go his way.
Which side looks right as of now?
Lucic was a bum in Edmonton, and now he's a bum in Calgary.
Because fans are dumb and love to pile on the Oilers
Hall for Larsson was bad on its own for Edmonton, but Hall winning a Hart doesn't make the deal worse for them. It's the same way that Schultz for a 3rd wasn't bad for Edmonton just because Schultz got better in Pittsburgh.
The Flames traded a bum for a bum then. Neal reverting back to the goal scorer he was before Calgary while in Edmonton doesn't mean that he was that caliber of player in Calgary. What matters is what he was in Calgary, which was a tire fire. The Oilers are massively benefiting from buying low on Neal, but Calgary did what it had to do in order to get rid of a player who just didn't fit there.
Neal having an incredible season for Edmonton doesn't make the deal worse for Calgary, because Neal was terrible in Calgary. The deal is turning out to be amazing for Edmonton, but it's not worse for Calgary because of his success in Edmonton.
The only way that trade would be bad for Calgary is if Lucic is worse in a bottom-6 role than Neal or having Lucic hurts them in some way that having Neal wouldn't have hurt them.