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

Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by Kamiccolo, Feb 11, 2020.

  1. Oil Dood

    Oil Dood Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2019
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    851
    Trophy Points:
    81
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Basically. I am sure both teams would love the close to 6 million cap space these two are making.
    For Edmonton to spend that money on a legit top six player. For Calgary, that money could get you real functional toughness on at least two lines.

    Chiarelli and Treliving should have to pay those contracts out of their own pockets.

    Clearly I am an Oiler fan so I will stand by the Oiler "won" the trade, but there was no winner here, mearly one side lost a little less then the other side.
     
    Bounces R Way, Schred, Fig and 3 others like this.
  2. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    You mentioned previously that Neal playing on the third line was due to treliving wanting to "save face". Which indicates that he caves to the scrutiny of the fanbase/media. If calgary doesn't have the players required to put Neal in a position to succeed then they shouldn't have signed him in the first place which would have ultimately avoided the problem of having to trade him for a 4th liner making 5.25 million which any way you attempt to spin it is absolutely terrible.

    That being said, it brings us back to the initial argument that Edmonton won this trade, no contest. Even if Neal remains injured for the rest of the season, point totals alone to date would indicate such to anyone that isn't a mouth breather.
     
  3. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    No, go back and read it again. I said the opposite.
     
  4. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    I wouldn't be talking about "strawman" arguments while making one yourself.

    At least with the way it currently sits Lucic's NMC is in place. You are assuming that he would consider moving it which realistically for any player is far more disruptive to their lives hence far more unlikely.

    It's not about what you think are quality players a team would like to keep. It's about a 5.25 million dollar boat anchor long term contract that you now have to pay which holds back potentially improving the team. One of the most important assets any team can have right now is cap flexibility. You clearly fail to understand that.
     
  5. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    ????????

     
  6. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    The full sentence is: "I think it would've been the choice made by a GM with a bigger ego than Treliving who wants to save face."

    I can see why you misunderstood. It's unclear sentence structure:

    I think it would've been the choice made by a GM (with a bigger ego than Treliving) who wants to save face.
     
  7. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    Sorry but I'm not accepting the backpedalling and quite frankly this is splitting hairs over insignificant details.

    Terrible trade for calgary.
     
  8. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    Calling it back-pedaling is pretty disingenuous. I can understand if you want to stop discussing it, but no need to take a flailing shot like that on your way out.
     
  9. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    I would be glad to discuss it all day had you actually brought fourth a compelling argument rather then excuses followed by trying to move the goal posts.
     
  10. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    Like what? You just attempted to call your own flawed parsing of a sentence "backpedalling," so you'll forgive me for assuming you're making this up too.
     
  11. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    Flawed parsing?

    Even if we assume you are telling the truth about being grammatically challenged, (which would be exclusively your fault as to why I came to the conclusion that I did since I'm not a mind reader) you still haven't provided anything of substance outside of a 2 game sample size to justify any stance that calgary won this trade.
     
  12. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    Actually, I blame the English language on that one. I accept that there was a second way to interpret this sentence, but I think pretending that you can't see the intention of that statement when it is presented to you is pretty stubborn, even for an Oiler fan in a BoA thread. :laugh:

    I believe you have confused me with someone else in this thread based on that last part. Not one of my posts has referenced Lucic's recent scoring. I also was never involved in any absolute conversation about who "beat" the other team in this trade. I first said that the Flames "won" (and so did the Oilers) because they improved in the trade with the Flames taking on significantly more long-term risk. More recently, I jumped in on a topic regarding the concept of whether Neal would have rebounded in Calgary this year if he hadn't been traded. My contributions were limited to that.

    I'm guessing that you think I'm moving goalposts because you're attributing all Flames fans' comments on each sub-topic to me at this point. :huh:
     
  13. BruinsFan37

    BruinsFan37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    59
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    So you're saying Seattle is taking Neal in the expansion draft? No? Because that was the sole point I was making. At the end of the day, after Seattle makes their picks for the expansion draft, Lucic (even if he waives his NMC) and Neal with still most likely be with the Flames and Oilers, and they both will still be anchors for their teams. Just go back and look at the Vegas draft -- a lot of people were hoping Vegas would pick their teams bad contracts and lo and behold, they didn't.

    As far as the rest of Neal's contract vs. Lucic's, sure Neal is the better contract to have, since you have more exit options, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making -- which was that Seattle isn't picking Neal or Lucic, and the talent level (on either team) is not such that having Lucic on you team (or not) is going to matter if he doesn't waive his NMC and you have to use a protected slot on him. So for someone to say "you have to protect Lucic in the expansion draft, and that's why Neal's contract is better" is silly. There are other, better reasons why Neal's contract is arguably better to have, but that is not one of them.
     
  14. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    Yes, let's blame a language rather then your poor ability to use it... Take some accountability, won't you?

    I didn't confuse anyone. I mentioned the only valid arguement as a reference that quite frankly is based on a 2 game sample size so it's diminished to not sustainable status.
     
  15. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    Well, yes and no. Clearly, I could have written that sentiment in a more roundabout way to make it completely unambiguous, but it wasn't actually incorrect. If you're really going to try to drag this into a grammar war, don't overlook that.

    You're claiming that I haven't made any convincing arguments to advance a point that I have not engaged in in any way as a means to try to leave a perfectly cromulent discussion with your nose in the air. Do you see why I'm finding that to be a bit silly?
     
  16. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    No. The point I'm making is that if both teams were to buy out both players today the negative impact would be significantly less for Edmonton since there is actually benefit in doing so unline with the Lucic situation.

    If Neal was literally playing as terrible as he was due to incorrect use by the coach then calgary would have been better off not handicapping their future like they have trading for lucic. Just boyout the contract and move on.

    Now they have to pray that Seattle is interested in Lucic and that he's willing to waive in order to save one of the many "top 9 players" calgary has coming up through the ranks that could replace him for ELC money.
     
  17. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    Serious question, do you spin doctor for a living?

    As I'm sure you are aware, (again assuming you're telling the truth about having poor grammar) is that if your point can be misconstrued on the internet, it will be. It's up to the user posting the statement to make clear what they mean rather then using ambiguous language. Like I said previously, I'm not a mind reader.

    I'm also not looking to leave anything but what reason have you provided to keep me compelled to stay?

    Just admit the trade was terrible for calgary rather then trying to grasp at any tiny sliver of positive contribution lucic still has left and we can leave it at that.
     
  18. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    This is just bizarre at this point. We were discussing a point, and after getting to the bottom of your misunderstanding, which I understand was legitimate, you made a post claiming you no longer were interested in continuing the discussion, and attempted to take a shot while you did it.

    Now you're basically saying that the only thing that interests you in a conversation is when people agree with your fanaticism. Which makes me wonder why you'd leave HFOil and come to the main board anyway.

    My take on the trade has always been that the Neal signing was terrible, but the trade gave the Flames a chance to get something positive out of it. If we're talking about the trade, and only the trade, it did improve the Flames. I think this is beyond even questioning. For the Oilers, people have no apparent issue with comparing what James Neal is contributing to what Lucic would have contributed, which is the right way to go about analyzing the trade. For the Flames, people seem to fall into the habit of comparing what Lucic is contributing to not having Lucic at all, which is a conflation of the signing with the trade. Plain and simple, the Flames are better off having made that trade than they would have been buying James Neal out after year 1, and they are better off having made that trade than they would have been keeping James Neal for another year.
     
  19. InfinityIggy

    InfinityIggy Zagidulin's Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    32,935
    Likes Received:
    5,518
    Trophy Points:
    187
    SB Cash:
    $ 2,510,000
    Location:
    59.6097709,16.5425901
    It not back peddling, you need to actually consider what the other poster is saying instead of skimming over it, and confusing yourself.
     
  20. Bank Shot

    Bank Shot Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    8,769
    Likes Received:
    1,969
    Trophy Points:
    156
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    That's nonsense.

    The Flames could have gotten a much better player than Lucic with the $4 million a Neal buyout would have freed up.
     
    deeb likes this.
  21. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    The thread is about the Neal/lucic trade. Were you confused? Does this explain why you've gone off about insignificant details at this point?

    No, I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me. I'm saying that if you expect to be taken seriously and maintain a realistically civil conversation then first and foremost post a grammatically correct sentence that's not left open to interpretation (assuming that's what actually happened) and secondly provide a compelling reason for your stance rather then a bunch of excuses. Other than a highly inconsistent level of physicality (depending on which team lucic is playing) every metric of this trade is in favor of Edmonton. Since the thread is regarding that specifically, calgary is the loser of this trade.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  22. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    It's 100% backpedalling because he changed his stance and blamed it on a grammatical error.
     
  23. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    They could have likely gone out with their $3.8M and signed a more effective player, yes. But they are also reducing their cap by $2M for four more years beyond that. I think, and certainly the Flames would agree, that the difference between Lucic and a $3.8M player is not big enough to offset that long-term loss.

    For the caricature version of Lucic that we had from his old fans, I think the buyout would've been the better option. But Lucic has not been bad enough to make the buyout worth it to this point, by any metric really.
     
  24. Anglesmith

    Anglesmith Setting up the play?

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Messages:
    41,844
    Likes Received:
    7,102
    Trophy Points:
    162
    SB Cash:
    $ 1,200,000
    Occupation:
    Scientist
    Location:
    Victoria
    But my stance didn't change. It never once changed. You keep saying this and it looks more ridiculous each time you do.
     
  25. deeb

    deeb Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2020
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    8
    SB Cash:
    $ 500,000
    The only ridiculous look is blaming poor use of the english language rather then yourself for backpedalling.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"