Was the Lucic - Neal trade actually a win for the Flames?

McXLNC97

Registered User
Mar 20, 2007
5,320
2,188
B.C.
Calgary has been getting owned by LA ever since tkachuk started his feud with Doughty. For so many shames fans that claimed his antics contribute to wins, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case against a bottom feeder like the kings.

Matthew's more focused on trying to score between his legs every night instead of trying to pick up W's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onetweasy and deeb

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
Which only confirms the point I'm making.

As I'm sure you are aware, a lot of players can't just randomly get thrown to a line every once in a blue moon and perform.

A lot of players need chemistry which is built from consistent line mates that have talent.

Lindholm did not. And you're referring to a guy who, this year, was red hot from day 1 and has gotten less reliable throughout the year.

The argument is essentially that it would have been worth-while for the Flames to put up with their first line getting absolutely steamrolled for a while in hopes that at some point, Neal started playing better hockey. And then, if they stuck it out long enough, he might eventually get hot and help them with some goals. Maybe even 20. It's certainly a choice they could have made. I think it would've been the choice made by a GM with a bigger ego than Treliving who wants to save face. As a fan, I'm glad they prioritized winning over James Neal's stats and didn't get caught up in sunk cost.

They ended up putting Neal on the line where he did show some chemistry. Apparently he wasn't happy about it, and he didn't really get any more effective over the course of the year, on that line, or on the Gaudreau line where he played a shift after every PP.
 

deeb

Registered User
Feb 10, 2020
94
65
Matthew's more focused on trying to score between his legs every night instead of trying to pick up W's.

Lucic the "fan favorite" also with a fat -2 and zero points on the night.

I thought he was finally breaking out in calgary?
 

deeb

Registered User
Feb 10, 2020
94
65
Lindholm did not. And you're referring to a guy who, this year, was red hot from day 1 and has gotten less reliable throughout the year.

The argument is essentially that it would have been worth-while for the Flames to put up with their first line getting absolutely steamrolled for a while in hopes that at some point, Neal started playing better hockey. And then, if they stuck it out long enough, he might eventually get hot and help them with some goals. Maybe even 20. It's certainly a choice they could have made. I think it would've been the choice made by a GM with a bigger ego than Treliving who wants to save face. As a fan, I'm glad they prioritized winning over James Neal's stats and didn't get caught up in sunk cost.

They ended up putting Neal on the line where he did show some chemistry. Apparently he wasn't happy about it, and he didn't really get any more effective over the course of the year, on that line, or on the Gaudreau line where he played a shift after every PP.

Lindholm is by a landslide better then both players so that comparison is irrelevant.

So the excuse now being made is that treliving made a bad trade because he doesn't have any balls and caved to fan pressure? At the end of the day what did that accomplish? Winning one game and a first round playoff exit? I see that paid off masterfully...

The majority of Neals minutes were by no contest primarily buried on the third line. The 20 seconds he would play with little johnny after the power play are completely meaningless.
 
Last edited:

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
Lindholm is by a landslide better then both players so that comparison is irrelevant.

So the excuse now being made is that treliving made a bad trade because he doesn't have any balls and caved to fan pressure? At the end of the day what did that accomplish? Winning one game and a first round playoff exit? I see that paid off masterfully...

The majority of Neals minutes were by no contest primarily buried on the third line. The 20 seconds he would play with little johnny after the power player are completely meaningless.
What? Not sure how you got to that conclusion from what I said. Are you trying to suggest that sewering the team to attempt to defend your own bad signing would have been a gutsy and smart move by the GM? That's an odd take.

Yes, James Neal ended up in the bottom six. I described how that happened. It wasn't because that was where the Flames envisioned him playing coming into the year. It was because that was where he got the most offensive zone time, because when he played in the top 6, his line was hemmed in for every shift. By the time James Neal was playing on the third line, Treliving had already realized that the player he signed was nowhere near the player he thought he was getting. It, along with the Brouwer signing, stand against his record as two major gaffes that hurt the Flames' chances of building a contender.

Plain and simple, the Flames do not have the luxury of a top line that can take the possession hit that James Neal gave his line last year. The Oilers do. Such is life. When you factor in the fact that Lucic is effective in a bottom-six role and brings a needed aspect of heaviness on the forecheck, and importantly doesn't complain about his role and cause friction in the locker-room, the trade does make sense for the Flames.
 

BruinsFan37

Registered User
Jun 26, 2015
1,583
1,667
His contract structure is buyout proof and he had that NMC that was going to kills us during expansion. Neal could have scored 1 goal this season and the trade would be a win

I've always thought that part of the argument was pretty weak. Seattle isn't going to pick either Lucic or Neal unless you bribe them, and if I was going to bribe them I'd be more inclined to bribe them to not pick a certain player(s) than picking Lucic or Neal, as it would likely be cheaper. Sure Lucic's NMC clause means the list you can protect is one shorter then it could be, but there aren't enough quality players on the Oilers (or the Flames for that matter really) for it to really matter. I mean really, who were you afraid of losing in the expansion draft because Lucic is filling up one of the protected slots? (assuming he doesn't wave it -- which he very well might, in which case it's a complete strawman defense).

(Side note: If Lucic does waive the NMC for the expansion draft, is it completely null and void? or does it remain in place for "normal" trades.)
 

FanTheFlames

Registered User
Aug 20, 2017
382
189
Lucic is the Man looks like a white version of the Hulk out there smashing everything while Neal is the dumb version of Bruce Banner tapping it in to open nets. I also think if the rumors are true that lucic will wave for expansion that carries tremendous value for Calgary with so many good top 9 players that need protecting.
 

CraigsList

In Conroy We Trust
Apr 22, 2014
19,191
6,974
USA
His contract structure is buyout proof and he had that NMC that was going to kills us during expansion. Neal could have scored 1 goal this season and the trade would be a win

I’ve already explained in previous posts why that is a weak argument.

If you buy out your player, how does that make you win the trade?
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
If Neal is a rusty Porsche and Lucic is an abused pickup truck, it's easier for the Flames to drive a crap product to the ice with fewer trips, with the abused pickup truck than the rusty Porsche.

The biggest factor is the damn NMC. If that had been voided after the trade, this be the reaction hands down:

RhGt7AY.gif


But since the NMC was not voided, until the expansion draft is over, from an outsiders perspective (ie: Fans), Flames lose this trade handily due to the contract stand point. That being said, it did seem like there was a hint that Lucic had informally agreed to waive his NMC for Seattle when the trade happened.

On a different note, I will defend my fellow Flames fans comments in regards to the concept that contracts aside, Lucic is doing significantly more to make the Flames on ice product bearable than we would have expected from Neal.
 

Oil Dood

Registered User
Sep 17, 2019
1,792
1,015
I’ve already explained in previous posts why that is a weak argument.

If you buy out your player, how does that make you win the trade?

It is more so you can get out of a contract. Two GM's made mistakes in signing these guys to bad contracts. Edmonton got the better goal scorer, Calgary got the big nasty guy that does not play big nasty all the time. Both contracts were bad at the time and got worse with age. The win comes in the fact that one GM can get out of one of these contracts now and the other has no benefit.

One wins because they can get out of the contract and not cost the team too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deeb

Oil Dood

Registered User
Sep 17, 2019
1,792
1,015
If Neal is a rusty Porsche and Lucic is an abused pickup truck, it's easier for the Flames to drive a crap product to the ice with fewer trips, with the abused pickup truck than the rusty Porsche.

The biggest factor is the damn NMC. If that had been voided after the trade, this be the reaction hands down:

RhGt7AY.gif


But since the NMC was not voided, until the expansion draft is over, from an outsiders perspective (ie: Fans), Flames lose this trade handily due to the contract stand point. That being said, it did seem like there was a hint that Lucic had informally agreed to waive his NMC for Seattle when the trade happened.

That being said, I will defend my fellow Flames fans comments in regards to the concept that contracts aside, Lucic is doing significantly more to make the Flames on ice product bearable than we would have expected from Neal.

Yeah either player was not doing squat for their teams at the time of the trade. Edmonton's PP needed a net front precence and Lucic was not the guy.


Calgary needed some toughness and clearly there were issues with Neal there.

Essentially both sides sold off used couches to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fig

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
It is more so you can get out of a contract. Two GM's made mistakes in signing these guys to bad contracts. Edmonton got the better goal scorer, Calgary got the big nasty guy that does not play big nasty all the time. Both contracts were bad at the time and got worse with age. The win comes in the fact that one GM can get out of one of these contracts now and the other has no benefit.

One wins because they can get out of the contract and not cost the team too much.

The Lucic contract is like a train. You're stuck on the tracks until you get to the end of the line.

The Neal contract is like an unreliable sports car. You can elect to slash the tires before you reach your destination and call an uber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satire

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->