Quoting: Bluetomorrow83
Actually Calgary gets the player with the shortest term and the player that scored 10 more points then Neal. Let's not forget Neal was so bad he was healthy scratch in the Playoffs
Neal played in 67 games last year getting 19 points, pro-rate that gives you 23 points for full 82 game season. Eriksson had 29 points in 81 games.
Quoting: Socially_Hawkward_Podcast
So Edmonton gets the best player on the cheapest contract with the shortest term? Calgary will pass
Neal and his offence contributions don't fit with Calgary; he's obviously lost the confidence of the coach and team, and isn't helpful on the PK. The trade takes three aging, and bad players on bad contracts and reshuffles them to fit with the team that needs their traits the most.
Calgary - Loses Neal (who they don't use anyways; he's also expressed his dissatisfaction on the team and with the coach); gain Loui Eriksson who will fit into their bottom 6 as a more versatile player rather than a benched goal scorer. He can also contribute to the PK. Eriksson also has three years left on his contract vs. Neal who has 4.
Edmonton - Loses Lucic (his physical presence isn't needed as they can rely on Nurse and Kassian); gain James Neal who would slot into their top six (likely second line) as a goal scorer where he won't be required to carry a line, or for his leadership or intangibles. He's there just to receive a pass and shoot (something the Oilers lack).
Vancouver - Loses Loui Eriksson (has voiced he's not happy and doesn't see eye-to-eye with the coach); gain the physical presence the desperately need with the core of small, young players they have. Lucic would also offer a strong net front presence for them that could be moved into their top-six intermittently.
McDavid, Connor
$250,000)
newmy liked this.
CapFriendly
CapFriendly