Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[darksabre]

9 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Bobby Lou is no Roy lol 

[pi2000]

19 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's patently impossible to trade for the equivalent of a guy who invented a new way to play the position lol 

[In The Buff]

On 8/10/2021 at 9:31 AM, Digger said:

Another thing to consider with 3 way deals is that they generally would involve only one team that really wants Eichel, otherwise the other team is settling and helping the other team to get the player they really want.

Vegas, Ducks, Wild all would like Eichel.  So why would they instead help the Rangers to get Eichel?  A Zibanejad extension won't be cheap.

I could see a 3 way deal with Minnesota getting some extra assets if they decide they need to move Fiala and/or Kaprizov because of high salary demands and the inability to sign both long term.

Well for Vegas, Ducks & Wild 1 of them would be getting Zibanejad, who has put up more points per game than Jack & doesn't come with the injury concerns.

The extension won't come cheap for sure, probably around the $9-9.5m mark. So basically the same cost as Jack.

Not saying i think any of those are likely to happen, but there's not much info coming out these days other than crickets haha
If a deal is to be made at all, maybe its taking so long because there is a 3 way trade being discussed, and thats what is dragging this out.

Or the sides are just too far apart

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Again, how about a goalie from the modern era who is this impactful? There's no one on the ice right now changing the game in net. The position is standardized. Unless they completely change the rules or the equipment there will never be another Roy or Hasek. Those days are gone.

[pi2000]

13 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Again, how about a goalie from the modern era who is this impactful? There's no one on the ice right now changing the game in net. The position is standardized. Unless they completely change the rules or the equipment there will never be another Roy or Hasek. Those days are gone.

 I was responding to the post that said "trading for a franchise goalie is a huge mistake every single time it's done". 

This is false.   

[triumph_communes]

40 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

 I was responding to the post that said "trading for a franchise goalie is a huge mistake every single time it's done". 

This is false.   

In the cap era it’s true. 

[darksabre]

41 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

 I was responding to the post that said "trading for a franchise goalie is a huge mistake every single time it's done". 

This is false.   

Right. All I'm saying is it's a moot point because the examples you cited don't exist anymore. 

[pi2000]

18 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Right. All I'm saying is it's a moot point because the examples you cited don't exist anymore. 

Fluery just won the Vezina and was traded to CHI.  

[darksabre]

6 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Fluery just won the Vezina and was traded to CHI.  

We're not talking about regular old Fleury, a very good goalie. We're talking about Hasek and Roy. 

You're the one who brought Roy into the conversation though. If you want to talk about goalies that are great but not Roy then yeah, you can trade for that. 

[pi2000]

9 minutes ago, darksabre said:

We're not talking about regular old Fleury, a very good goalie. We're talking about Hasek and Roy. 

You're the one who brought Roy into the conversation though. If you want to talk about goalies that are great but not Roy then yeah, you can trade for that. 

"regular old Fluery" just won the Vezina.    IMO he's a franchise goalie, and he was traded.    That's my point.... franchise goalies can be had via trade.   Nothing to do with generational level talent.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Trading for a ‘franchise’ goalie is a huge mistake every single time it’s done. Draft and get lucky is the only way. 

Besides that Hasek fellow.

[Doohicksie]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The best solution to this mess is for the Jack, the Sabres and the Sabres' insurance company to get together and work out a deal.   

What's in it for the insurance company?  Seriously, I can't see why they want to change their policy.

[Andrew Amerk]

23 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Besides that Hasek fellow.

Hasek doesn’t count in this case, because at the time, the Sabres weren’t trading for a franchise goalie. 

He ended up becoming one, unbeknownst at the time to the trade participants. 

[Pimlach]

5 hours ago, Lanny said:

 

Or they know that they'd lose

Yes they would lose.  Even with the highly credible Robin Lehner backing Jack. 

[Digger]

14 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Besides that Hasek fellow.

We should remember that we had no idea what we traded for when we got Hasek.  Everyone thought he had no style because he was flopping all over the ice and dropping his stick.  Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted a trade getting a worn out Grant Fuhr.  We should have left Hasek in net for the next series after the Mayday goal and win over the Bruins (but I digress).  

Closest young goalie today might be Spencer Knight as the next one.  It will be interesting to see him develop this season with Florida.  I would love to find another Hasek.

Another interesting thought might have come from the Ryan O'Reilly trade.  What if we had got Jordan Binnington in the trade?  He hadn't had much impact with the Blues before that year and was an older prospect.  I'm not sure it would have been hard to get him.

[Marvin]

12 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

What's in it for the insurance company?  Seriously, I can't see why they want to change their policy.

The insurance company has no reason whatsoever to yield.  Thus, the Sabres effectively have no reason to yield.  No actuary should risk her/his career to give the green light.  Thus, we are stuck.

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

What's in it for the insurance company?  Seriously, I can't see why they want to change their policy.

For multiple reasons.  Customer relations, additional premiums, and also probably avoiding long-term litigation.  For example.  Let's say Jack uses the medical clause in the CBA and goes to arbitration.  While the prevailing wisdom is that this surgery Jack wants is experimental, it's not like it's brand new.  Johns Hopkins has a whole webpage devoted to the procedure.  One of the first things you learn in law school is that going to court or arbitration is never a sure thing.  If Jack wins in arbitration and the procedure fails ending Jack's career the insurance company is likely to get sued by the Sabres if they deny the claim since the Sabres had no right any longer to stop the procedure.  Specialty insurance is a very specialized and competitive industry with a limited customer base.  It's usually better to work with your customers then get sued by them.

[apuszczalowski]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

Hasek doesn’t count in this case, because at the time, the Sabres weren’t trading for a franchise goalie. 

He ended up becoming one, unbeknownst at the time to the trade participants. 

What about the Redwings? They traded for a franchise goalie from Buffalo......

[apuszczalowski]

2 minutes ago, Digger said:

We should remember that we had no idea what we traded for when we got Hasek.  Everyone thought he had no style because he was flopping all over the ice and dropping his stick.  Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted a trade getting a worn out Grant Fuhr.  We should have left Hasek in net for the next series after the Mayday goal and win over the Bruins (but I digress).  

Closest young goalie today might be Spencer Knight as the next one.  It will be interesting to see him develop this season with Florida.  I would love to find another Hasek.

Another interesting thought might have come from the Ryan O'Reilly trade.  What if we had got Jordan Binnington in the trade?  He hadn't had much impact with the Blues before that year and was an older prospect.  I'm not sure it would have been hard to get him.

But then we wouldn't have gotten Hutton!

And Binnington hasn't really been that great since the Cup run....

 

I do think there are much less 'Franchise Goalies' out there today and its leading to many teams going the route of getting a 1A/1B tandem with good but not great guys to carry the work load. 

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

The insurance company has no reason whatsoever to yield.  Thus, the Sabres effectively have no reason to yield.  No actuary should risk her/his career to give the green light.  Thus, we are stuck.

Preczactly.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

For multiple reasons.  Customer relations, additional premiums, and also probably avoiding long-term litigation.  For example.  Let's say Jack uses the medical clause in the CBA and goes to arbitration.  While the prevailing wisdom is that this surgery Jack wants is experimental, it's not like it's brand new.  Johns Hopkins has a whole webpage devoted to the procedure.  One of the first things you learn in law school is that going to court or arbitration is never a sure thing.  If Jack wins in arbitration and the procedure fails ending Jack's career the insurance company is likely to get sued by the Sabres if they deny the claim since the Sabres had no right any longer to stop the procedure.  Specialty insurance is a very specialized and competitive industry with a limited customer base.  It's usually better to work with your customers then get sued by them.

If it goes to arbitration and the Sabres lose, the Sabres have still met their end of the contract; I'm not sure why you think that, if it didn't go well, the insurance company wouldn't pay out.  Your scenario just seems nonsensical to me.

1 hour ago, apuszczalowski said:

What about the Redwings? They traded for a franchise goalie from Buffalo......

....and rode him to a Cup.

[Curt]

12 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Preczactly.

Eggszachary

[Sabres Fan in NS]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

Eggszachary

FUCALE!!

😎

[pi2000]

Just a thought.... but the longer this drags on with no news from either side, I believe the less likely it is that he actually needs surgery.

KA mentioned he'd have no problem with Jack being at camp.   

How could he confidently say that if the medical staff has come to the conclusion that surgery is required?

If he absolutely needs surgery why wouldn't he have filed a medical grievance by now?   A 2 month recovery from today would mean he misses the start of the season.

[spndnchz]

And BOOM!  
 

You’ve been Eichelized. 
 

And your parents have flat foreheads.