Jack Eichel Contract Extension: Talks Occuring

[Derrico]

Two years ago for Tarasenko. Last year for the other two.

I know rfa years matter but jack is better than tarasenko.

 

He's better than the other two as well. Surprised how cheaply Florida got barkov.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Derrico

[TrueBlueGED]

Yes I did. and yes, it was precious.

:lol:

 

I'd say "DAMN PHONE" but it was a pretty awesome typo.

[dudacek]

Jack is better than all of them, IMO, and I'm willing to pay him more.

But he certainly hasn't proven he is $2-3 million better.

[Derrico]

Jack is better than all of them, IMO, and I'm willing to pay him more.

But he certainly hasn't proven he is $2-3 million better.

If tarasenko got $7.5 you don't think Jack is worth $2 mil more?

[pi2000]

Players' contracts should actually be proportional to their +/-. Say the best + player in the league falls in at +40. He should get the $10 mil deal, so 1 plus should be worth about $250,000. 

 

Therefore Jack actually owes the Sabres $3.25 mil next season. 

 

I misunderestimated you.

Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate him.

 

1 year, $1.5M. You know... a prove-it deal.

 

Hourly pay would be a great motivator.

[dudacek]

If tarasenko got $7.5 you don't think Jack is worth $2 mil more?

Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more.

This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be.

[Randall Flagg]

This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less. 

I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge.

[dudacek]

This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less.

I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge.

It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals.

Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points.

Edited June 28, 2017 by dudacek

[TrueBlueGED]

It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals.

Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points.

If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation.

[Derrico]

Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more.

This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be.

Fair but he had a better ppg then tarasenko last season coming off a devastating injury. He's a better player today and 4 years younger. He just has t been in the league long enough to put up those points. I'd rather a guy get paid on potential (especially on a guy with huge hype that hasn't disappointed) than so many guys who are just paid for past production.

If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation.

LOL. Good to see us back on the same mindset again. I missed ya blue lol.

[TrueBlueGED]

This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less.

 

I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge.

I don't think too many are going to argue with this. I think a coach he doesn't hate and the captaincy* will help this along.

 

*I officially want to move out the old leadership core. Though I think Gionta can still play, he was captain while that locker room was a disaster.

[Thorner]

Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more.

This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be.

I'd rather pay for likely achieved future performance than unlikely to be replicated past performance. See: Toews, Blackhawks.

[Randall Flagg]

If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation.

I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations.

[qwksndmonster]

It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals.

Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points.

...

 

Is this really dudacek?

I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations.

I mean, I don't think anyone isn't expecting Jack to grow up. He's still a kid.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations.

I'm talking about the points and playoffs thing. It reeked of Harrington's "Eichel needs to score more goals, his assists don't count enough" trope from when Eichel had like 2 goals and 13 assists over 15 games.

[dudacek]

If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation.

Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin.

You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do.

 

And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card?

I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad.

[Scottysabres]

I don't see him signing a long term deal for under 10. He knows what he's worth to this team.

I think somewhere between 9/9.5 and 11 mil for 8 years is what we'll see. And worth every penny.

[TrueBlueGED]

Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin.

You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do.

 

And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card?

I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad.

I'm sorry, you're right, that was over the top. But there's nothing that makes my blood burn more than judging individuals by team metrics, especially in freaking hockey.

 

Edit: I'm also not entirely sure GMs look at raw dollars. Keep in mind, they always talk about contracts becoming a better value as the cap increases--at the very least, they're implicitly aware of contracts relative to the cap ceiling.

Edited June 28, 2017 by TrueBlueGED

[Thorner]

I'm sorry, you're right, that was over the top. But there's nothing that makes my blood burn more than judging individuals by team metrics, especially in freaking hockey.

Wait, so Toews isn't as good as Crosby and Malkin, even though he has 3 cups?

 

YOU are the drunk, around these parts.

[Taro T]

$68 over 8 years. If the Boston is strong in this one, fine give him $8.625/yr for 8. :p

 

My best guess is the $8.5/x8. Sets him for life. Makes him highest paid player on the team & leaves cap room to keep very talented 2nd bananas on the team. This kid seems to want to win. (Losing focus at the end of a lost year under a Goober not being held against a kid that can't legally drink in this state.) Taking a slight haircut to keep a strong team could happen (at least in dreams). ;)

[WildCard]

Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin.

You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do.

 

And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card?

I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad.

To be fair 1/2 of those players have never won a Cup; Perry did but as a throw in rookie on a much better team.

 

I'd also argue it's very evident that those aren't the best 10 players in the league. At the time of their contracts they were, maybe, but for at least 1/2 of them, it had nothing to do with winning 

Edited June 29, 2017 by WildCard

[Huckleberry]

seems you guys are all talking long term deals, He'll go for a bridge deal or we overpay for a longterm deal.

 

but I can't see him getting more than 8x8 mill.  And then we are paying for what we think he might become.

bridge deal is it.

[dudacek]

To be fair 1/2 of those players have never won a Cup; Perry did but as a throw in rookie on a much better team.

 

I'd also argue it's very evident that those aren't the best 10 players in the league. At the time of their contracts they were, maybe, but for at least 1/2 of them, it had nothing to do with winning 

 

Five of them signed those deals after a cup, not counting Perry, who technically did, and has played 114 playoff games and been to the final four multiple times.

Subban, Lundqvist, and Stamkos have all been to the finals on top of their regular season success. They have all had success in the playoffs and the regular season before signing those deals. Ovie, is the exception, but has been the best goal scorer in hockey, for a decade now.

 

I'm not saying what should be, I'm saying what is: they have earned their big tickets performing where is mattered most.

Edited June 29, 2017 by dudacek

[nucci]

seems you guys are all talking long term deals, He'll go for a bridge deal or we overpay for a longterm deal.

 

but I can't see him getting more than 8x8 mill.  And then we are paying for what we think he might become.

bridge deal is it.

He's not going to sign a "bridge" deal. This is his chance for a big payday and he'll get it

[That Aud Smell]

If the Sabres bridge-deal Eichel, the only poster here who will have a bigger tantrum than me is ... who? Blue? It'll be a helluva competition, that's for sure.