Is There a Path Forward for Eichel and the Sabres?

[Andrew Amerk]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

We all thought Hall was a guarantee of some form of this and it has not been. A big part of me believed losing Hall this summer all but guaranteed disappointment from Jack/great difficulty improving next year - and will we keep him? Do we even want to?  

I would like to see what Hall does under a coach not named Ralph, before letting that big fish back into the small pond. 

[IKnowPhysics]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

I would like to see what Hall does under a coach not named Ralph, before letting that big fish back into the small pond. 

I don't know that we'll ever get that chance.

Hall is here because of Ralph.  If Ralph is fired before Hall is re-signed, I'm near 100% that Hall walks.  I, personally, would rather Hall not walk.  I'd like to see him play some ridiculous minutes with Eichel.

But something has to change.

[Andrew Amerk]

1 minute ago, IKnowPhysics said:

I don't know that we'll ever get that chance.

Hall is here because of Ralph.  If Ralph is fired before Hall is re-signed, I'm near 100% that Hall walks.  I, personally, would rather Hall not walk.  I'd like to see him play some ridiculous minutes with Eichel.

But something has to change.

Unfortunately, we probably won’t get that chance. This team is way too slow to react and adapt and make changes. 

Hall is gone at this point, but if his play improves with a better coach, he probably stays. He came here because of Ralph, but might stay if someone better is coaching. I’d gather he’s sick of being stuck on teams that win the lottery. 

I also think Hall and Eichel play too similar of styles to be effective together, but then again, a very good coach MIGHT be able to change that. We may never know. 

[sabresouth]

10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

IMHO, the path forward is:

- Do not trade Eichel

- Improve the goaltending

- Figure out by the end of this year whether better coaching is needed and if so hire someone like Boudreau

- Improve the rest of the roster around Eichel, either via internal development or opportunistic pickups from around the league.  E.g. Vinny Trochek was available last year for a pretty reasonable price and he would've been a much better addition at 2C than Staal has been. 

The bones of a good team are already here -- Eichel, Reino, VO, Dahlin, Risto, young talent at F and D, and maybe Ullmark as part of a goalie tandem.  Eichel is by far the hardest piece to find.  What they should NOT do is panic, trade him and start over.

Agree with everything you said freeman. All I would add is giving the C to someone else. Not sure who though. I also also agree with Curt, not sure how you do it without problems. But I actually think eichel would play better without the pressure that comes with the C.

 

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

So let's say you're Terry Pegula and watched the game this afternoon, along with everything else preceding it. 

Is there any possible way you still think Ralph Krueger is maybe going to be the answer as Sabres head coach?

I would suggest it is impossible to think that way.

Therefore, the only real decision is when to fire him, with an emphasis on the timing having as little negative impact, and as much positive impact, on the organization as possible.

Frankly, that supports firing him tomorrow, especially with the names floating around right now on the job market.

 

 

[Andrew Amerk]

12 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

So let's say you're Terry Pegula and watched the game this afternoon, along with everything else preceding it. 

Is there any possible way you still think Ralph Krueger is maybe going to be the answer as Sabres head coach?

I would suggest it is impossible to think that way.

Therefore, the only real decision is when to fire him, with an emphasis on the timing having as little negative impact, and as much positive impact, on the organization as possible.

Frankly, that supports firing him tomorrow, especially with the names floating around right now on the job market.

 

 

The problem is that Terry has sort of said he’s scared of the big names on the market. 

I think he’s scared of their power. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I get the frustration, but I think a teardown, like the tank, is much more likely to result in another generation in the dumpster than in a positive outcome.  What’s needed is patient and prudent addition of a few key pieces, and, more importantly, for the right guys to be in place to make and execute the decisions.  

We're not going to agree on this. imo we've been trying the patient addition and it doesn't work. I mean we added Skinner and that was supposed to work. Added Hall and that was supposed to work. Nothing works around this core and this team culture. 

What I really want to point out though is it's not like the tank at all. Then, he gutted the team to try and land 1 generational player. Then proceeded to empty the cupboard with the assumption that that was all we needed to do. It was complete folly.

So, you trade Hall to a playoff team at the deadline or a little before. A 1st and a prospect seem reasonable there?

You trade Reinhart. A first and a prospect and? maybe?

You trade Eichel. you get ? The old offer sheet thing used to be 4 1sts I think? Lindros went for 5 players/picks/top prospects if I remember. So a top prospect maybe 3 1sts plus something like that. 

Risto I'm reluctant to trade but would due to the baggage. Plus lesser picks and prospects for the rest of the losers like Montour, Staal. Eakin, whoever. 

You see where I'm going with this? It's a much bigger treasure trove than the tank. A true chance to do it right and get the right players with the right attitude. Cozens types. 

You hire Gallant or some other coach who can build a hard work first culture. 

Lastly, there is an absolute ton of UFAs coming up and you sign a bunch of leadership hard work types to build the new youth around. We'd be competitive and have a strong foundation in 2-3 years max. 

[Curt]

@nfreeman, @PerreaultForever

I would kind of walk a middle ground on this.  If it’s deemed that Jack needs to be traded, I don’t think I would trade out too many guys.

Hall, Staal, Montour, Eakin, Thompson, Miller, maybe Risto.  Also try to move out Skinner and Okposo, somehow.  Along with coaching changes.  I think I would want to try to keep just about everyone else.

I would also be trying to get some young roster players and/or prospects who are close as opposed to draft picks who are 3-4 years away from contributing.

I would not want it to be an extreme tear down, any more than necessary.

EDIT:  unfortunately, I’m now realizing that because of contract reasons, if you do trade Eichel, it almost necessitates trading Reinhart and Risto.  If not, they are going to walk for nothing after next season.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Curt

[pi2000]

Who gives a ***** if Eichel is frustrated with the losing.... that doesn't mean you trade him.     If he sulks and checks out, then so be it.   Too bad so sad, enjoy your $80 million and you'll go down in history as mentally fragile loser, nobody feels bad for you.    

Look at guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Stamkos, Ovechkin, etc.. who stuck with their team's through thick and thin, and ultimately were rewarded.    They've had storied careers because they never gave up even when things looked hopeless and season after season of losing...  but they stuck with it and ultimately brought home a championship.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

We're not going to agree on this. imo we've been trying the patient addition and it doesn't work. I mean we added Skinner and that was supposed to work. Added Hall and that was supposed to work. Nothing works around this core and this team culture. 

What I really want to point out though is it's not like the tank at all. Then, he gutted the team to try and land 1 generational player. Then proceeded to empty the cupboard with the assumption that that was all we needed to do. It was complete folly.

So, you trade Hall to a playoff team at the deadline or a little before. A 1st and a prospect seem reasonable there?

You trade Reinhart. A first and a prospect and? maybe?

You trade Eichel. you get ? The old offer sheet thing used to be 4 1sts I think? Lindros went for 5 players/picks/top prospects if I remember. So a top prospect maybe 3 1sts plus something like that. 

Risto I'm reluctant to trade but would due to the baggage. Plus lesser picks and prospects for the rest of the losers like Montour, Staal. Eakin, whoever. 

You see where I'm going with this? It's a much bigger treasure trove than the tank. A true chance to do it right and get the right players with the right attitude. Cozens types. 

You hire Gallant or some other coach who can build a hard work first culture. 

Lastly, there is an absolute ton of UFAs coming up and you sign a bunch of leadership hard work types to build the new youth around. We'd be competitive and have a strong foundation in 2-3 years max. 

But it's not a bigger treasure trove than the tank.  They had a zillion high draft picks from the tank teardown.  That also was a chance to "do it right."  And it bought us 8 years and counting of the worst stretch in the franchise's history.

As @Taro T has astutely noted many times, when you effect a total teardown, too many things have to go right, along a long road, for you to end up as a contender.  It happens once in a great while, but the likelihood is too low. 

You want to trade Hall, Staal, Montour and Eakin at the deadline?  I'm in.  You want to trade Reino for presumably good value instead of committing to him for a long-term contract?  I'm skeptical, but it depends on the price to keep him vs the trade offers, and I'm open to discussing it.  Also very open to discussing a new coach and a senior hockey guy to work with/instead of KA.

You want to pay someone to take KO and Skinner?  I'm all ears, although no one should kid himself.  It's not happening unless you want to part with multiple 1st-rounders.

But trading Eichel would be folly.  He's not as good as Crosby or McD, but he's nevertheless irreplaceable and he will be great again. 

[Thorner]

@Curt presents an interesting point, though: Yes, we mostly all want to keep Eichel. But what if he is planning to demand a trade (or just does it) and the organization is aware? Is it feasible to keep a player that unhappy on the roster? Or do you have to give in to the demand? I agree in theory you can say  “sorry, under contract” but history shows if a player makes enough fuss they usually get moved. 

So is there merit to the idea the Sabres should explore a deal this summer in earnest, when they have the leverage, before Jack’s no move kicks in? Or, is Jack so good they just take their chances, that Jack will either change his mind, or that they’ll be able to flip the on ice results totally next season? 

It could also depend on what kind of leeway the GM/Krueger have. If they are at all on a short leash, I can’t see them dealing Jack. Keep him, and if it blows up and the team has to move Jack while hamstrung by his no move, that’s probably the next guy’s problem. 

If Adams/Krueger are a fixture, maybe they consider the idea of trying to maximize an asset they feel there’s a reasonable chance they’ll be in a worse spot with in a year. 

 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

@Curt presents an interesting point, though: Yes, we mostly all want to keep Eichel. But what if he is planning to demand a trade (or just does it) and the organization is aware? Is it feasible to keep a player that unhappy on the roster? Or do you have to give in to the demand? I agree in theory you can say  “sorry, under contract” but history shows if a player makes enough fuss they usually get moved. 

So is there merit to the idea the Sabres should explore a deal this summer in earnest, when they have the leverage, before Jack’s no move kicks in? Or, is Jack so good they just take their chances, that Jack will either change his mind, or that they’ll be able to flip the on ice results totally next season? 

It could also depend on what kind of leeway the GM/Krueger have. If they are at all on a short leash, I can’t see them dealing Jack. Keep him, and if it blows up and the team has to move Jack while hamstrung by his no move, that’s probably the next guy’s problem. 

If Adams/Krueger are a fixture, maybe they consider the idea of trying to maximize an asset they feel there’s a reasonable chance they’ll be in a worse spot with in a year. 

 

Yes, and it kind of gets worse too.

Reinhart is arbitration eligible and one year from  UFA.  All he needs to do is go to arbitration this offseason then he will be on a one year deal and he can be free after next season.  Risto is also a UFA after next season.  These guys are not going to stick around if they don’t see success this season and next season.

So these two would also need to be moved if Jack is.

[twosoakers]

21 hours ago, bunomatic said:

I want solutions that include Jack but if the whining ( if it exists ) continues with Jack and his things better improve here or I’ll take my toys and leave routine, all bets are off. This team needs a leader who bears down and helps pull his teammates up with him not a child. The moping and stick breaking is not leadership. Hopefully he grows through this.

Eichel has been the consistent piece in this latest stretch of loosing. He is a great talent, but not a leader. His placement on the throne pissed off ROR and looking back ROR was right. Now that he has had the C for a couple years, there is no way you bring in a leader and relegate Jack to a superstar scorer (i.e. Patrick Kane). A team like the Rangers should give a truck full of return for him. 

[Pimlach]

Yes I understand the logic of not trading Eichel.  At least not in the very near term.  Acquiring that talent level again would be very hard to do.  
 

I will say that I really don’t care for Jack.  He has not shown the maturity, and leadership ability to warrant the top contract or the C.  Very talented player but not very clutch and not making a difference.   Just when I think he is maturing we get this  2021 Jack.   Maybe he is hurt?   In 2021 he looks like an above average player but not a difference maker, not a star player.  He has to be responsible and accountable for some of the problems here.  To suggest he isn’t would be wrong.   There is something about him I’m not liking.  I don’t know him, so I can’t pin point it.  
 

If a coach and GM like McDermott/Beane took over, would Eichel have the right “DNA” to help them establish a winning culture?   Or would he be one of the skilled veterans they move out because he does not.  If we had a GM I trusted, and we do not, an attempt at a Turgeon - LaFontaine trade would be welcomed.  Eichel would be Turgeon in this case.  Nice skills, nice stats, and nothing else.   
 

So for now. I’m not supporting an Eichel trade.  I think if Adams tried it he would get offers similar to what we got for ROR. That would be another disaster.  

Edited February 28, 2021 by Pimlach

[Curt]

9 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Who gives a ***** if Eichel is frustrated with the losing.... that doesn't mean you trade him.     If he sulks and checks out, then so be it.   Too bad so sad, enjoy your $80 million and you'll go down in history as mentally fragile loser, nobody feels bad for you.    

Look at guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Stamkos, Ovechkin, etc.. who stuck with their team's through thick and thin, and ultimately were rewarded.    They've had storied careers because they never gave up even when things looked hopeless and season after season of losing...  but they stuck with it and ultimately brought home a championship.

It’s not at all about whether or not anyone feels bad for Eichel or how he goes down in history.  Maybe Eichel should just buckle down and work until they become a great team, but that’s not the point.  This is not an ethical, moral question.  It’s about what is going to happen in reality and it’s about the what’s best for the Buffalo Sabres.

(1) If they feel that the relationship is broken and Eichel is going to request a trade, it’s a lot better to trade him before his NMC kicks in than after.

(2) If they feel that Eichel is committed long term to staying in Buffalo and working his butt off for the team, then keep him by all means.

Do you feel confident that Eichel falls under category (2)?  I feel that he is very close to (1) right now.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, twosoakers said:

Eichel has been the consistent piece in this latest stretch of loosing. He is a great talent, but not a leader. His placement on the throne pissed off ROR and looking back ROR was right. Now that he has had the C for a couple years, there is no way you bring in a leader and relegate Jack to a superstar scorer (i.e. Patrick Kane). A team like the Rangers should give a truck full of return for him. 

What exactly would the Rangers give us?   

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

Yes, and it kind of gets worse too.

Reinhart is arbitration eligible and one year from  UFA.  All he needs to do is go to arbitration this offseason then he will be on a one year deal and he can be free after next season.  Risto is also a UFA after next season.  These guys are not going to stick around if they don’t see success this season and next season.

So these two would also need to be moved if Jack is.

Exactly. We gotta get winning. It doesn’t matter when it happens. Considering the fact we haven’t seen a consistent winner in about a decade, honestly? There’s no time like the present. There *is* no future to mortgage if we don’t first change the trajectory. 

Adams should be doing everything in his power to address holes on the roster, especially something like goaltending. Commit to your roster. 

 

[mjd1001]

Ok, I know people don't want to hear what I am going to say as a possibility, but I'm going to throw this out there....

The Sabres aren't 'tanking' intentionally, not at all, but at the same point they aren't going all out to win. They are 'trying' to win, but there are things they could be doing but they aren't, and it is a decision by the coaching staff, GM, and ownership. 

By not going all out I mean....they are doing the thing with Skinner they way they are (if they were going all out, they would have him playing all the time.) Long term, Skinner is not going to be a 40 goal scorer for the rest of his contract no matter how much you play him...you are stuck with that contract likely...so force him at all costs to learn a 2-way game now....so at least he is USABLE in the 2nd half of his contract instead of being totally useless as a player who doesn't score anymore and puts no effort into any other part of his game.

They might be not playing some of the young guys as much as they could...letting the 'develop' instead.  They are trying to build what THEY think is a winning culture at the cost of letting players use their full ability.  They are trying to force Dahlin to play a different style of game (teaching it to him) instead of letting him just be him. 

Why might they be doing that?  They think it'll be better for the team in the long run....and with a short season...and the division they are in....they might say that no matter what they did this year the playoffs were a long shot and if they made it in...it would be hard to advance.  So, despite what the fans want...this is the perfect year to take that 1 step back that allows you to take 2 steps forward in the future....ensuring another top 10 pick also.

Ok, I'm not saying it is happening, I'm just thinking...it is a possibility.  Ralph seems like he could be/is a long term thinker....and a brand new GM would be in the same mindset.   With the success of the Bills, Pegula could be at least slightly more patient on the Sabres side of things because his attention is more on the success of the Bills.

Edited February 28, 2021 by mjd1001

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Exactly. We gotta get winning. It doesn’t matter when it happens. Considering the fact we haven’t seen a consistent winner in about a decade, honestly? There’s no time like the present. There *is* no future to mortgage if we don’t first change the trajectory. 

Adams should be doing everything in his power to address holes on the roster, especially something like goaltending. Commit to your roster. 

Yes, even if we say that this season is toast.  By the start of next season, they need to bring in a 1B level goalie (and resign Ullmark), a middle 6 C to replace Staal, a legit top 6 winger to replace Hall, and they need to fix the offensive creation which may require a coaching change.  And these things still may not be enough.  If they are not going to get all of that done this offseason at the latest, they may as well just trade Hall, Staal, Eichel, Reinhart, and Risto right now.

[Thorner]

51 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Yes I understand the logic of not trading Eichel.  At least not in the very near term.  Acquiring that talent level again would be very hard to do.  
 

I will say that I really don’t care for Jack.  He has not shown the maturity, and leadership ability to warrant the top contract or the C.  Very talented player but not very clutch and not making a difference.   Just when I think he is maturing we get this  2021 Jack.   Maybe he is hurt?   In 2021 he looks like an above average player but not a difference maker, not a star player.  He has to be responsible and accountable for some of the problems here.  To suggest he isn’t would be wrong.   There is something about him I’m not liking.  I don’t know him, so I can’t pin point it.  
 

If a coach and GM like McDermott/Beane took over, would Eichel have the right “DNA” to help them establish a winning culture?   Or would he be one of the skilled veterans they move out because he does not.  If we had a GM I trusted, and we do not, an attempt at a Turgeon - LaFontaine trade would be welcomed.  Eichel would be Turgeon in this case.  Nice skills, nice stats, and nothing else.   
 

So for now. I’m not supporting an Eichel trade.  I think if Adams tried it he would get offers similar to what we got for ROR. That would be another disaster.  

This is such a key point. 

It’s all well and good to say “trading Eichel makes sense if we can get a fair return” but why on earth would we feel at all confident in management to pull this off, when no offence to them, their track record is, if nothing else, incredibly limited (if you don’t count the overarching Pegulas (and would that help?!)? Especially when combined with the fact those types of deals are so rare because of how hard they are to pull off for even the most deft of GMs. 

Unless they are quite certain Jack is going to ask out, it may very well be far less risky to hold onto Jack and risk whatever happens in future re: a potential trade request, than rolling the dice on a pro-active deal would be. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

I think if Adams tried it he would get offers similar to what we got for ROR. That would be another disaster.  

 

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is such a key point. 

The ROR was done with an artificial deadline imposed.  I believe that really reduced the return.

Which is another reason to consider the Eichel thing sooner than later.  His NMC represents another artificial deadline to run up against.

I don’t want this team to be reactive in this scenario.  They cant just sit pat and wait to see what happens.  If they do that, and things go bad, they are going to end up watching Reinhart and Risto walk in UFA, and trading Eichel for $0.40 on the dollar.

If they can’t put a good playoff team on the ice next season, they need to think about a mini rebuild sooner rather than later.  And I’m all out of faith that this same group is going to be good next season.  I’ve seen too many next seasons come and go.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Curt

[mjd1001]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is such a key point. 

It’s all well and good to say “trading Eichel makes sense if we can get a fair return” but why on earth would we feel at all confident in management to pull this off, when no offence to them, their track record is, if nothing else, incredibly limited (if you don’t count the overarching Pegulas (and would that help?!)? Especially when combined with the fact those types of deals are so rare because of how hard they are to pull off for even the most deft of GMs. 

Unless they are quite certain Jack is going to ask out, it may very well be far less risky to hold onto Jack and risk whatever happens in future re: a potential trade request, than rolling the dice on a pro-active deal would be. 

Your point is the tricky part for fans.....

1.)  We can't feel confident they will get a good return...but the people making the decision of course will think they are.  No one in the position to trade him is going to say "I'm really terrible at my job so any decision I make is a bad one"  Fans might think that, but the people making each decision are going to think they are making a great deal.

2.)  Turn the above point on its head....having a deal on the table and NOT making the deal......can't you say if you have bad decision makers....they are equally as likely to turn down a great deal for him because they are bad at their job....as they would be for not getting enough?  Having a bad GM/management team could just as easily be not trading him when a good offer presents itself because they are not good enough to realize it.

The way bad management can work is the teams that do not make moves when they should...teams to sit on their hands too much. As fans we often don't know about that, however, because we DO know the trades that were made and can evaluate them...but we hardly EVER know the trades that were not made so we cannot evaluate them. The Sabres might be bad because of the deals or signings they Did NOT pull the trigger on..as the ones they have.

3.)  If Jack asks out....well...its likely we as fans will either NOT know that...or if we do we won't know it until well after it happens. Meaning the pivotal item in whether the Sabres need to trade him or not is something that management..and others 'in the room' will know for a time that fans will not know.

Edited February 28, 2021 by mjd1001

[Kruppstahl]

57 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Your point is the tricky part for fans.....

1.)  We can't feel confident they will get a good return...but the people making the decision of course will think they are.  No one in the position to trade him is going to say "I'm really terrible at my job so any decision I make is a bad one"  Fans might think that, but the people making each decision are going to think they are making a great deal.

2.)  Turn the above point on its head....having a deal on the table and NOT making the deal......can't you say if you have bad decision makers....they are equally as likely to turn down a great deal for him because they are bad at their job....as they would be for not getting enough?  Having a bad GM/management team could just as easily be not trading him when a good offer presents itself because they are not good enough to realize it.

The way bad management can work is the teams that do not make moves when they should...teams to sit on their hands too much. As fans we often don't know about that, however, because we DO know the trades that were made and can evaluate them...but we hardly EVER know the trades that were not made so we cannot evaluate them. The Sabres might be bad because of the deals or signings they Did NOT pull the trigger on..as the ones they have.

3.)  If Jack asks out....well...its likely we as fans will either NOT know that...or if we do we won't know it until well after it happens. Meaning the pivotal item in whether the Sabres need to trade him or not is something that management..and others 'in the room' will know for a time that fans will not know.

Don't forget that management may be looking to move Eichel even if he has not privately asked to be traded, if management thinks it is likely that he will at some point in the near future.

Once a situation like that becomes public around the league, it becomes that much harder for the Sabres to get fair value for the deal.

The way the team stays ahead of that is by trading Eichel before the word spreads that he wants out and the Sabres retain the leverage in making the deal.

It sounds like the Sabres were *not* prepared to go that route last off-season.

How about this off-season? 

Who knows what they are thinking.  They aren't very good at their jobs.

 

 

 

[pi2000]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

It’s not at all about whether or not anyone feels bad for Eichel or how he goes down in history.  Maybe Eichel should just buckle down and work until they become a great team, but that’s not the point.  This is not an ethical, moral question.  It’s about what is going to happen in reality and it’s about the what’s best for the Buffalo Sabres.

(1) If they feel that the relationship is broken and Eichel is going to request a trade, it’s a lot better to trade him before his NMC kicks in than after.

(2) If they feel that Eichel is committed long term to staying in Buffalo and working his butt off for the team, then keep him by all means.

Do you feel confident that Eichel falls under category (2)?  I feel that he is very close to (1) right now.

If he requests a trade you simply tell him, and the entire league, that you're not trading him.    If he holds out, you let him hold out, if he checks out you let him self destruct.   

Think of it as parenting a whiny spoiled kid who refuses to do his chores. 

 

[Norcal]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Yes I understand the logic of not trading Eichel.  At least not in the very near term.  Acquiring that talent level again would be very hard to do.  
 

I will say that I really don’t care for Jack.  He has not shown the maturity, and leadership ability to warrant the top contract or the C.  Very talented player but not very clutch and not making a difference.   Just when I think he is maturing we get this  2021 Jack.   Maybe he is hurt?   In 2021 he looks like an above average player but not a difference maker, not a star player.  He has to be responsible and accountable for some of the problems here.  To suggest he isn’t would be wrong.   There is something about him I’m not liking.  I don’t know him, so I can’t pin point it.  
 

If a coach and GM like McDermott/Beane took over, would Eichel have the right “DNA” to help them establish a winning culture?   Or would he be one of the skilled veterans they move out because he does not.  If we had a GM I trusted, and we do not, an attempt at a Turgeon - LaFontaine trade would be welcomed.  Eichel would be Turgeon in this case.  Nice skills, nice stats, and nothing else.   
 

So for now. I’m not supporting an Eichel trade.  I think if Adams tried it he would get offers similar to what we got for ROR. That would be another disaster.  

Well said. I like the Turgeon/ LaFontaine reference. That period in Sabres hockey was so exciting, even when Afinigenov had the puck and didn't know what to do with it. 

In the meantime if they feel trades are needed, I'd dabble in the odds and ends and leave Jack where he is. 

Start with Hall and Montour at the deadline. Guage the market for some others. 

See if anyone will bite on Hutton, they might feel that with the right team around him he could be a veteran backup who could steal a win or two down the stretch? It's far fetched but it could happen, he had a decent reputation when he came here. 

 

9 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

If he requests a trade you simply tell him, and the entire league, that you're not trading him.    If he holds out, you let him hold out, if he checks out you let him self destruct.   

Think of it as parenting a whiny spoiled kid who refuses to do his chores. 

 

People will say this is not how it works with today's athletes but I tend to agree with this.