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

[Oil Dood]

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.

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.

 

[deeb]

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.

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

You mentioned previously that Neal playing on the third line was due to treliving wanting to "save face".

No, go back and read it again. I said the opposite.

 

[deeb]

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.)

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.

 

[deeb]

No, go back and read it again. I said the opposite.

????????

Treliving who wants to save face.

 

[Anglesmith]

????????

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.

 

[deeb]

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.

Sorry but I'm not accepting the backpedalling and quite frankly this is splitting hairs over insignificant details.

Terrible trade for calgary.

 

[Anglesmith]

Sorry but I'm not accepting the backpedalling and quite frankly this is splitting hairs over insignificant details.

Terrible trade for calgary.

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.

 

[deeb]

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.

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

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.

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.

 

[deeb]

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.

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

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.

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.

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.

 

[BruinsFan37]

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.

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.

 

[deeb]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

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.

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?

 

[deeb]

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.

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.

 

[deeb]

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?

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

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.

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.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Sorry but I'm not accepting the backpedalling and quite frankly this is splitting hairs over insignificant details.

Terrible trade for calgary.

It not back peddling, you need to actually consider what the other poster is saying instead of skimming over it, and confusing yourself.

 

[Bank Shot]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[deeb]

It not back peddling, you need to actually consider what the other poster is saying instead of skimming over it, and confusing yourself.

It's 100% backpedalling because he changed his stance and blamed it on a grammatical error.

 

[Anglesmith]

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.

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.

 

[Anglesmith]

It's 100% backpedalling because he changed his stance and blamed it on a grammatical error.

But my stance didn't change. It never once changed. You keep saying this and it looks more ridiculous each time you do.

 

[deeb]

But my stance didn't change. It never once changed. You keep saying this and it looks more ridiculous each time you do.

The only ridiculous look is blaming poor use of the english language rather then yourself for backpedalling.