Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armchair GM Trade Thread
I don't think Lucic is the answer to our defensive woes.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 03:42 PM)Trevorchef Wrote: I don't think Lucic is the answer to our defensive woes.

Gotta be one of the worst contracts in the NHL right now.
It's Clarkson bad.
O' for a good life, we just might have to weaken
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 07:04 PM)Chip Wrote:
(Yesterday, 03:42 PM)Trevorchef Wrote: I don't think Lucic is the answer to our defensive woes.

Gotta be one of the worst contracts in the NHL right now.
It's Clarkson bad.

And looked awful the day it was signed.
Reply
Thanks given by: CaperLeaf , CaperLeaf
Is it James Neal bad?
Reply
Thanks given by:
Neal scored 25 goals last year, so not really.
He was also a leader in an expansion team.
He’s only 31 and signed for 5 more years.

It looks bad right now, but at the time of the signing it was fine.
O' for a good life, we just might have to weaken
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 07:49 PM)Chip Wrote: Neal scored 25 goals last year, so not really.
He was also a leader in an expansion team.
He’s only 31 and signed for 5 more years.

It looks bad right now, but at the time of the signing it was fine.

I don't agree. His style of player tends to decline in their early 30s (e.g. Lucic) and he had 41 and 44 points the previous two years which was a marked decline compared to before.

Showed he'd already started declining. It was a super risky contract at the time, which I said and so did a lot of other people.
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 07:49 PM)Chip Wrote: Neal scored 25 goals last year, so not really.
He was also a leader in an expansion team.
He’s only 31 and signed for 5 more years.

It looks bad right now, but at the time of the signing it was fine.

Lucic is a season and a half removed from 23G and 50P.

I would disagree he signed for the long term - it was kind of acknowledged by most that its similar to the Lucic contract, likely OK for a couple of years and then a decline. Maybe the decline comes early?

He's older than Lucic as well.

He's also -11 on a team that's a huge plus in goal differential. Ok, terrible stat, at 5 on 5 his GF% is 38%.

Anyways, to be fair, its really only been half a season for Neal (and a season and a half for Lucic) so he could rebound and likely does at least to some extent - if he continues though, the contract rivals Lucic's.
Reply
Thanks given by:
I guess they are comps if you look at, but I just find Neal brings more to the table than Lucic.

Regardless 5-6m long term on guys that produce 40 points, isn't exactly good cap management.
O' for a good life, we just might have to weaken
Reply
Thanks given by:
(Yesterday, 08:50 PM)Pouzar Wrote:
(Yesterday, 07:49 PM)Chip Wrote: Neal scored 25 goals last year, so not really.
He was also a leader in an expansion team.
He’s only 31 and signed for 5 more years.

It looks bad right now, but at the time of the signing it was fine.

Lucic is a season and a half removed from 23G and 50P.

I would disagree he signed for the long term - it was kind of acknowledged by most that its similar to the Lucic contract, likely OK for a couple of years and then a decline.  Maybe the decline comes early?

He's older than Lucic as well.

He's also -11 on a team that's a huge plus in goal differential.  Ok, terrible stat, at 5 on 5 his GF% is 38%.

Anyways, to be fair, its really only been half a season for Neal (and a season and a half for Lucic) so he could rebound and likely does at least to some extent - if he continues though, the contract rivals Lucic's.



They are 1 year part, technically less than a year.
Lucic was signed for more money and has a full NMC.

It's a worse contract in my eyes, but I guess not by a large margin.
O' for a good life, we just might have to weaken
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)