Forums/NHL Trades

(EDM/CGY) - Lucic (12.5% retained) & conditional 2020 3rd for Neal

Who won the trade?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options

 

Jul 20 at 8:04
#51
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,670
Likes: 136
Quoting: CoraStorm
please do your math that way I don't have to correct you... additionally stop believing everything you hear.


Asking for a source means I am believing everything I hear? That's literally the opposite how delusional are you?
Jul 20 at 10:17
#52
Oilers, Bruins, Habs
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 921
Likes: 402
Quoting: Brian2016
CGY won't make the playoffs next season. They've not improved in any facet of the game this summer and several of their divisional opponents have improved. They also way overachieved last year as everyone had career seasons. That won't happen again. I don't understand for one second why they made this trade. Neal had a terrible season but could certainly bounce back next season, especially while playing on McDavid's and/or Draisaitl's line and PP. He scored 20+ goals in 9 straight seasons until last year. Lucic has been on a drastic downward spiral since arriving in EDM, scoring a pathetic 6 goals last year. He's basically worthless at this point. EDM wins this trade by a mile and then some.


If cgy gets their goaltending figured out they could be very good
Jul 20 at 11:12
#53
Retired V2 & V3 GM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 369
Expect 70 points from Neal this season!! Especially if he plays with McDavid.

Once a penguin always a penguin!!! Love you Neal!
SpaghettiPasta liked this.
Jul 21 at 11:09
#54
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 744
Edmonton management and teammates are about to figure out why Neal is on his 6th team, and why teams are so willing to eject him from their roster.
Jul 21 at 8:46
#55
Nazaleaf
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 99
Likes: 90
Quoting: Yojimbo
Edmonton management and teammates are about to figure out why Neal is on his 6th team, and why teams are so willing to eject him from their roster.


Are you a Flames fan? You saying that because of his performance this past year?
Because the comment right above yours seems to disagree.

Quoting: Missouri
Expect 70 points from Neal this season!! Especially if he plays with McDavid.

Once a penguin always a penguin!!! Love you Neal!


I think he gets back to being at least a 20 goal guy in EDM. Just needs to figure out where he fits into the team hierarchy.
Jul 21 at 9:27
#56
Majors and minors
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 78
Likes: 13
it's a dumb dumb trade... for Edm this costs Edm 6.5 now.
Jul 21 at 9:29
#57
Majors and minors
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 78
Likes: 13
Quoting: AH96
Asking for a source means I am believing everything I hear? That's literally the opposite how delusional are you?


Edm is now paying 6.5 mil Calf although books show 5.25, are only paying 4.0.
Jul 21 at 9:57
#58
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,670
Likes: 136
Quoting: CoraStorm
Edm is now paying 6.5 mil Calf although books show 5.25, are only paying 4.0.


Here's my original post

Quoting: AH96
Source? That's a pretty fair condition.

Good luck to Lucic in Calgary, great guy but unfortunately not a good contract.


At what point did I mention dollar figures? Please go back and re-read this thread you must have intended to reply to someone else
Jul 21 at 10:54
#59
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 78
Likes: 18
I will not be jumping through 10 hoops to explain why Calgary isn't losing this trade because of money saved over the contract term, nor will I say Edmonton wins this trade hands down because of Neals past offensive production.

This is a clear "fair deal" if I've ever seen one. On one hand, Edmonton moves a player they essentially ran out of use for and gain one that might be able to jump into their top 6, and if not, they haven't really loss anything. On the other hand, Calgary also moves a forward they loss use for and gain a forward who can take his spot in the bottom 6 while adding more grit they are lacking in a veteran, and sure, saving some money. As far as cap goes though, both teams stay pretty much neutral. The conditional pick is a mute point because if Neal hits 21 goals, then it's easily worth it. So all in all, fair deal.

But I will say this: I watched many oiler games last season, Lucic simply doesn't have the speed needed to be an offensive contributor in this league anymore and tends to be too late to the play to throw useful hits. This makes me want to say Edmonton will win this, but since I didn't see much of Neal last season, I'll just keep it at fair.
Jul 22 at 6:34
#60
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: Trickster
I am iffy on this trade.

Does saving 500k really worth this?
Neal much more likely to bounce back over Lucic should be a factor in the decision for this too.


I think the cash savings of $9M over 4 years for Calgary was more attractive to them then the cap difference. They have a new arena to pay for...
Jul 22 at 6:44
#61
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: OldNYIfan
This trade isn't nearly as bad for Calgary as everyone thinks/says it is. Everybody has to step back and look at the math.

Calgary and Edmonton are not New York or Los Angeles, or Toronto. Neal's contract was/is all salary, equally spread. Thus the Flames owed Neal $23 million over the next four years. In contrast, Lucic's contract was front-loaded and there was a $3 million signing bonus that Edmonton just paid, so Lucic is owed a total of $16 million by Calgary for the same period. Now subtract the retention ($3 million), and Calgary saves $10 million in real cash by this trade. Now $10 million to us sitting in the comfort of our armchairs at home may not seem important, but to the Calgary GM it means that he can offer a free agent next summer a $2.5 million signing bonus in every year on a four-year contract -- money he didn't have before, but which may mean the difference between being able to sign Matt Duchene or Artemi Panarin and being able to sign Ryan Dzingel. So although Edmonton may be the winner on the ice, Calgary is the winner at the bank.


Well said, I should have read through the comments prior to posting just now. One correction: Edmonton isn't retaining $3M, but $2M. The retained salary portion is 12.5% of $16M, or $2M. They also retain 12.5% of the $24M remaining cap hit, or $3M cap over 4 years ($750k per year). But the actual cash payments owed to Lucic by CGY is $14M, still $9M below what they would have paid Neal. This will help pay for the arena that council is voting on today.

If' you're looking at cash payments, they just traded a bad $5.75M players for a bad $3.5M player, for a small market team that has some attraction all by itself.
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul 22 at 6:47
#62
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: AH96
Source? That's a pretty fair condition.

Good luck to Lucic in Calgary, great guy but unfortunately not a good contract.


According to this article, Lucic ranks as the 5th worst. Neal was an honorable mention (10-15 range).

https://theathletic.com/1070877/2019/07/11/by-the-numbers-a-look-at-the-10-worst-contracts-in-hockey/
Jul 22 at 6:50
#63
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: mondo
someone made a comment about the flames possibly trading lucic again:





would be funny to see like 3 or 4 teams have his contract on their books.


A contract can be retained on only twice.
Jul 22 at 6:55
#64
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: CoraStorm
Lucic's: 6.0 aav - but it isn't ... Edm prepaid 5 mil the first 3 years additionally, on the trade, Edm withholds 750K so if a buyout or anything like that Edm is still on the hooks, forget the draft pick for the time being, the actual cash per is only 4.75 on bal of contract.


The actual cash owed to Lucic at the time of the trade was $16M, or exactly $4M per year. Edmonton has retained 12.5% or $500k per year on average, meaning CGY owes Lucic $12M over 4 years - a $3.5M per year average.


Quoting: CoraStorm
there were better ways to open up Sal cap space: Even buying out Klefbom/Larsson you would have saved 5 to 6 mil per year... u would have had to replace D men but so does W'peg now.


Buying out Klefbom or Larsson? What planet are you from?
OldNYIfan and SpaghettiPasta liked this.
Jul 22 at 6:58
#65
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: CoraStorm
Edm is now paying 6.5 mil Calf although books show 5.25, are only paying 4.0.


Edmonton is paying an average of $6.25M in cash per year: $5.75M to Neal and $500k (average) to Lucic. $6.5M is Edmonton's cap hit.

Calgary is paying an average of $3.5M in cash per year to Lucic. $5.25M is the cap hit.
Jul 22 at 7:07
#66
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,951
Likes: 1,263
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
I'm just saying some people say big rivals will never trade with each other.


Those same people also said that Lucic couldn't be traded. Two urban-myth-birds killed with one stone?
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul 22 at 9:14
#67
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 744
Quoting: thelastlongbow
Are you a Flames fan? You saying that because of his performance this past year?
Because the comment right above yours seems to disagree.


A lot of Penguin fans want Neal back. I have said a number of times that Neal will never be in a Penguin jersey again. None of these make sense on paper, unless the teams just want the guy to go away...

Dallas sent him and Niskanen to Pittsburgh for Goligoski. Goligoski was not much of an upgrade over Niskanen, just "potential", but Goligoski is actually 8 months older than Niskanen. Goligoski vs Niskanen was certainly not near adding a 30 goal scoring 23 year old winger to upgrade.

Pittsburgh sent him to Nashville for Hornqvist and Spaling. Neal was averaging 40g/82pts the 3 full seasons he played for the Pens, but they sent him out and were even willing to take on overpaid Spaling to do it.

Nashville exposes him and lets Vegas take him for "free". Even though averaging 30g, bye bye. ("free" because someone else would have gotten taken otherwise, which would be a cost)

Vegas doesn't resign him and lets him walk as a UFA. That's two teams with no measurable return (exp draft then just cap space).

Calgary trades him for Lucic. (no extra comment necessary)
Jul 22 at 9:19
#68
best poster
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 818
Quoting: CD282
A contract can be retained on only twice.


boring
Jul 22 at 9:42
#69
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 152
Quoting: toque
Edmonton moves the worst contract in the league. For me it's a win for them


Brent Seabrook's contract is the worst in the league and its not close.
Jul 22 at 10:25
#70
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,875
Likes: 2,908
Quoting: Hockeyplayer1
Brent Seabrook's contract is the worst in the league and its not close.


Yep, probably ... almost 7M for a bottom pairing defenseman who's getting worse and may soon be a 7th d-man ... and he's signed for 5 more years, until he's 39. grimace
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul 22 at 3:41
#71
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
Quoting: OldNYIfan
This trade isn't nearly as bad for Calgary as everyone thinks/says it is. Everybody has to step back and look at the math.

Calgary and Edmonton are not New York or Los Angeles, or Toronto. Neal's contract was/is all salary, equally spread. Thus the Flames owed Neal $23 million over the next four years. In contrast, Lucic's contract was front-loaded and there was a $3 million signing bonus that Edmonton just paid, so Lucic is owed a total of $16 million by Calgary for the same period. Now subtract the retention ($3 million), and Calgary saves $10 million in real cash by this trade. Now $10 million to us sitting in the comfort of our armchairs at home may not seem important, but to the Calgary GM it means that he can offer a free agent next summer a $2.5 million signing bonus in every year on a four-year contract -- money he didn't have before, but which may mean the difference between being able to sign Matt Duchene or Artemi Panarin and being able to sign Ryan Dzingel. So although Edmonton may be the winner on the ice, Calgary is the winner at the bank.


Solid thoughts OldNYIfan. Edmonton fans are saying they got rid of the worst contract in the NHL. if you believe that Neal and Lucic are apples to apples the same caliber of player(which i do). Technically speaking, Edmonton is paying $500'000 more for "the worst contract in the NHL". They came away from that deal paying even more!? they added to that contract! And they lost a 3rd round pick too (because those conditions are never gonna be met.)!? Yeah, Calgary Wins.
OldNYIfan liked this.
Jul 22 at 6:44
#72
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 7
Likes: 16
Should CGY attempt to buyout Lucic after 3 years, EDM would have to claim him or be affected by a 5M recapture penalty.
Jul 23 at 5:11
#73
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 279
Likes: 103
Quoting: Exeko
Should CGY attempt to buyout Lucic after 3 years, EDM would have to claim him or be affected by a 5M recapture penalty.


Lucic's contract is compliant with the new rules and therefore wouldn't be subject to recapture penalties, which only apply in event of the player retiring not when they are bought out. At least that is my understanding. Where did you see that EDM would suffer a recapture penalty?
Jul 23 at 11:18
#74
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 152
Quoting: J2W
Lucic's contract is compliant with the new rules and therefore wouldn't be subject to recapture penalties, which only apply in event of the player retiring not when they are bought out. At least that is my understanding. Where did you see that EDM would suffer a recapture penalty?


This is correct. Teams only get stuck with a recapture penalty when a player retires, not from buyouts.
Jul 24 at 6:25
#75
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 110
Likes: 77
Quoting: OldNYIfan
This trade isn't nearly as bad for Calgary as everyone thinks/says it is. Everybody has to step back and look at the math.

Calgary and Edmonton are not New York or Los Angeles, or Toronto. Neal's contract was/is all salary, equally spread. Thus the Flames owed Neal $23 million over the next four years. In contrast, Lucic's contract was front-loaded and there was a $3 million signing bonus that Edmonton just paid, so Lucic is owed a total of $16 million by Calgary for the same period. Now subtract the retention ($3 million), and Calgary saves $10 million in real cash by this trade. Now $10 million to us sitting in the comfort of our armchairs at home may not seem important, but to the Calgary GM it means that he can offer a free agent next summer a $2.5 million signing bonus in every year on a four-year contract -- money he didn't have before, but which may mean the difference between being able to sign Matt Duchene or Artemi Panarin and being able to sign Ryan Dzingel. So although Edmonton may be the winner on the ice, Calgary is the winner at the bank.


I like this trade better for Edmonton, but after having time to think about it, I agree that it isn't nearly as bad for Calgary as I thought at first blush.

Edmonton does great. They have decent depth forwards, in fact after their 3 best players, that's all they have. Lucic making $6M to be that was atrocious, also his NMC could be a headache come the expansion draft as well.

However, when you look at how each of the players are playing, it's actually somewhat sensible swap of bad contracts. Lucic (surprisingly) has the underlying numbers of an effective 3/4th line winger. So if that is the role he is going to play, he has been more effective at driving play, keeping pucks away from his end, throwing a few hits and being effective in 12-13 minutes a night. The problem is he looks washed in terms of offensive ability, and that role is likely worth about $2M right now.

Neal is essentially a one dimensional weapon at this point. He still has a good looking release, and will maybe throw a few hits. He has more potential to bounce back in terms of offensive production, and if he is playing on a line that isn't worried about having him drive the offense, he could provide more value than Lucic did for Edmonton. It's a gamble, but there is more upside. Edmonton also doesn't have the same opportunity cost in putting him with a good center since he won't be taking a spot from a more effective winger to do so.

Calgary has some good wingers, so giving Neal PP1 wasn't going to happen, and he didn't fit with the more defensive minded Backlund line, and you certainly aren't taking either Gaudrea or Lindholm off that top line, so Neal would likely have continued to be an ineffective 3/4 winger in Calgary. So I don't think it's as crazy to just suggest that Calagary can make better use of Lucic than they ever would have gotten out of Neal.

They also did a decent job in hedging this bet with $500k in cap spavings, and a conditional 3rd. Throw in the $10M in cash savings, which for a team that does care about actual dollars may give him more freedom from the owner to use actual dollars, and I don't think this is that bad at all. If Neal does score over 21 goals, and Lucic is a good 3rd line winger, Edmonton looks good in year 1, but gives up a 3rd, and this could still work out that Lucic is better (for his role) for the rest of the contract after that. If that 3rd never moves, it will almost certainy be because Neal is a total bust, in which case he may actually be worse that Lucic, and in that scenario Calgary has made a very Saavy move.

Even typing about it I am convincing myself more and more that this was far smarter a move than I initially gave it credit for (my initial reaction was what was BT doing?!). I still think Edmonton did well in this deal, but I think the reality is that just because Edmonton can make better use of Neal, doesn't mean it would have been possible for Calgary to do so effectively.
OldNYIfan, YvanF, Curtas_Glencrosby and 1 other person liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Submit Poll Edit