Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[SabresVet]

20 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Jack is certainly not starting the season on any roster at this point.  It's very unlikely that he'll be recovered enough to play whichever surgery he gets at this point.  The longer the continued delay on the surgery, the longer it will be until he is back on the ice.  That said, I'm actually of the belief he'll have to return and play for the Sabres before anyone will make a legit offer for him.  This is speculation on my part, but it seems to fit the facts as we know them right now.

They are at a stalemate.  We know Jack wants the surgery (apparently) and the Sabres won't permit it.  Teams won't offer what Adams wants because they know the returning asset is not 100%.  Unless Adams lowers his price and provides some health update to teams, this will carry into the pre-season.  

Then they'll have him in for a physical, determine he's not fit and put him on IR.  Who knows how long, but you can't trade someone in that position.  It's whyI don't believe Adams has a Plan B.  Then again, neither does Eichel being under contract 5 more seasons.  

[Hoss]

48 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What's the chance rest and therapy has actually gotten that disc to reabsorb and Jack's actually back to 100

I’d guess the chances of this are incredibly low and if it were the case Jack would be gone either already or within a few days.

[Digger]

47 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What's the chance rest and therapy has actually gotten that disc to reabsorb and Jack's actually back to 100

Yes I was wondering about that too.  We know that he's been skating and shooting (non contact assumed).  I'm wondering if he's pain free right now and would be willing to try some contact to see how it stands up.  Personally if I was him I would put off any surgery as long as possible.

[Doohicksie]

4 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I don't mean this argumentatively but we also don't know if there's been offers and all of us would be like - dang I would have taken that.  We just automatically dump on our GM and owners.  The owners of course have earned the criticism but KA hasn't... yet.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking we can come out on the good side of the Eichel situation.  

Preczactly.

[kas23]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

What's the chance rest and therapy has actually gotten that disc to reabsorb and Jack's actually back to 100

Low-ish. But he’s 24 years-old, so definitely not zero. 

[kas23]

51 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I’d guess the chances of this are incredibly low and if it were the case Jack would be gone either already or within a few days.

It depends how often they are doing imaging, which I don’t think they are doing very often. Plus, imaging is not a yes-or-no study. It’s open to radiological interpretation and/or clinical correlation. Still, even with an improved c-spine herniation, I would still want to see the player on the ice. 

[kas23]

58 minutes ago, Digger said:

Yes I was wondering about that too.  We know that he's been skating and shooting (non contact assumed).  I'm wondering if he's pain free right now and would be willing to try some contact to see how it stands up.  Personally if I was him I would put off any surgery as long as possible.

I would as well. Surgery is forever. I think many of on here would pull a muscle if we wound up and delivered an NHL slap shot. I wonder too if he’s painless in doing so. 

[7+6=13]

Many keep saying Jack is damaged so we're not going to get much in return.   If that becomes a reality then KA could potentially fleece a team to take on that risk and contract,  even with a small return. 

My only point for my recent posts is, can we at least understand there's several possibilities that KA could actually do something that has good results?

[Thorner]

18 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

That's fine but Jack playing healthy NHL games makes the price go up.  Not what said team is uncomfortable with now,  then you get him for that.

Good point. 

If Jack comes back and plays for Buffalo and looks like he did two seasons ago, it’s not “ok, fine, we’ll give you Trevor Zegras now”. A healthy Eichel for Zegras and pieces would be a horrible trade for Buffalo. Trade proposals should return to what the thread started with/what we would have said a year ago: start with Zegras AND Drysdale and go from there.

We’d be moving one of the best players in the world.

17 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I just can't find any reason why he would do that.  We're in perfect position with where the team is, to be in absolutely no hurry.  

I understand what you mean, but intentionally making the team so bad that winning next year is so inconceivable to the point where it doesn’t matter if we wait on Jack doesn’t spring the words “perfect position” to my mind. 

[Thorner]

Twitter seems to be down? 

Eichel trade must have happened

[Stoner]

54 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We’d be moving one of the best players in the world.

You're not really saying much. So is Matt Barzal.

[PromoTheRobot]

9 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

Many keep saying Jack is damaged so we're not going to get much in return.   If that becomes a reality then KA could potentially fleece a team to take on that risk and contract,  even with a small return. 

My only point for my recent posts is, can we at least understand there's several possibilities that KA could actually do something that has good results?

Not possible. Any deal KA makes will be hated and compared to the ROR deal. You can't see into the future or know how another possibility would work out. Hindsight tells us trading Jack last year would have been the smart move. But if Adams did that he would have been tarred and feathered for trading our generational talent. You can't win.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

You're not really saying much. So is Matt Barzal.

I said a Jack returned to 2019-20 form. Arguably at a top 10 league wide level. Significantly better than Barzal. 

Regardless, let's say Barzal is as good - if I'm saying not much, I don't know what direction you are going with your post. BARZAL should be traded for a top prospect and pieces, and you have Jack at his level, so he should be too?  Or was I just too vague, ie, technically everyone in the NHL is one of the best hockey players in the world. In that case, ya, like I said, Jack was elite tier prior to his last 21 career NHL games. Elite among the elite. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

It's interesting. I wonder if there is valid skepticism around here, even if returned to full health, that Jack's latest healthy season might not represent the new standard going forward for Jack's play on the ice, even assuming health. That he still needs to prove out that performance over a larger sample size. To me that might explain why the player Jack had become in 19-20 seems to get underplayed, as it was recent enough that it's not like people have forgotten. He was a complete and total force on the ice that season and had elevated to a level unseen for him. 

Or he just wears the record more fully that I would have guessed, rightly or wrongly or for better or worse. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[Stoner]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I said a Jack returned to 2019-20 form. Arguably at a top 10 league wide level. Significantly better than Barzal. 

Regardless, let's say Barzal is as good - if I'm saying not much, I don't know what direction you are going with your post. BARZAL should be traded for a top prospect and pieces, and you have Jack at his level, so he should be too?  Or was I just too vague, ie, technically everyone in the NHL is one of the best hockey players in the world. In that case, ya, like I said, Jack was elite tier prior to his last 21 career NHL games. Elite among the elite. 

Where I'm going is we overrate our Sabres. 19/20 Jack is not burned in brain. Nor is 89/90 Turgeon. I wonder why.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Where I'm going is we overrate our Sabres. 19/20 Jack is not burned in brain. Nor is 89/90 Turgeon. I wonder why.

I think I got there in my follow up: sample size. 

Jack Eichel was one of the 10 most valuable players, not just centres, in the league that season according to the Professional Hockey Writers' Association - it's not a "we" thing. 

[7+6=13]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

 

I understand what you mean, but intentionally making the team so bad that winning next year is so inconceivable to the point where it doesn’t matter if we wait on Jack doesn’t spring the words “perfect position” to my mind. 

I get that and I'd counter that making the team intentionally less competitive is the correct move.  So having this Jack situation happen now, means little.  We're not going anywhere.  IMO, spending in free agency, signing Ullmark and Sam and then not having Jack - would be a much much worse situation.  

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I get that and I'd counter that making the team intentionally less competitive is the correct move.  So having this Jack situation happen now, means little.  We're not going anywhere.  IMO, spending in free agency, signing Ullmark and Sam and then not having Jack - would be a much much worse situation.  

Depends on the free agency bit to an extent I guess, but you think we'd be worse off with Ullmark and Reinhart still Sabres? Wasn't the idea originally that we could move Jack and remain competitive? That Sam was a good player to help bring the kids along? Pairing the kids with a capable backstop made sense? 

I also think you underrate the peril of the Jack situation. It's not at a net neutral right now - we are sitting at a net negative. He's not an asset that we have, he's an asset that we need - regardless of whether you want him on our team he's, by far, our most valuable individual piece. I feel like that's being forgotten sometimes - he's way more valuable than Dylan Cozens. Than Owen Power. Jack Eichel is still our most valuable piece. 

The Sabres literally cannot afford to squander it. So the stakes here are still very high. Having so much riding on a move that history shows is exceptionally difficult to make is not a "good" situation, it's a perilous one. That doesn't mean it can't be salvaged, but we don't have a strong hand right now, if this was poker.

It will take skilled maneuvering. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

29 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's interesting. I wonder if there is valid skepticism around here, even if returned to full health, that Jack's latest healthy season might not represent the new standard going forward for Jack's play on the ice, even assuming health. That he still needs to prove out that performance over a larger sample size. To me that might explain why the player Jack had become in 19-20 seems to get underplayed, as it was soon enough that it's not like people have forgotten. He was a complete and total force on the ice that season and had elevated to a level unseen for him. 

Or he just wears the record more fully that I would have guessed, rightly or wrongly or for better or worse. 

I am of the opinion Jack should be worthy of a haul.

To date, no GM has agreed, which I take as proof that I'm wrong.

My conclusion is that Adams is asking fair value for peak Jack Eichel and teams have reasons to doubt they will be getting peak Jack Eichel. I think the very fact Jack is on the market is a red flag to GMs. To a man, they are saying "if I had a talent like that, I sure as heck would not be trading him."

Many of you think it is simply because he is 'broken' and his repair is doubtful. I see Jack playing scrimmage games and hear about multiple teams being interested and am skeptical that is solely the case; if it was, steps would have been taken to fix his neck by now.

I agree he wears the record, rightly or wrongly.

I also think he wears the character questions — the coach-killing, backcheck-coasting, Kane-buddy, eye-rolling, 4th-liner-belittling, me-centric questions.

Rightly or wrongly.

Edited August 27, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I am of the opinion Jack should worthy of a haul.

To date, no GM has agreed, which I take as proof that I'm wrong.

My conclusion is that Adams is asking fair value for peak Jack Eichel and teams have reasons to doubt they will be getting peak Jack Eichel. I think the very fact Jack is on the market is a red flag to GMs. To a man, they are saying "if I had a talent like that, I sure as heck would not be trading him."

Many of you think it is simply because he is 'broken' and his repair is doubtful. I see Jack playing scrimmage games and hear about multiple teams being interested and am skeptical that is solely the case; if it was, steps would have been taken to fix his neck by now.

I agree he wears the record, rightly or wrongly.

I also think he wears the character questions — the coach-killing, backcheck-coasting, Kane-buddy, eye-rolling, 4th-liner-belittling, me-centric questions.

Rightly or wrongly.

This is all fair but the context for my post here was the perception of that 19-20 season.

[Stoner]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I am of the opinion Jack should worthy of a haul.

To date, no GM has agreed, which I take as proof that I'm wrong.

My conclusion is that Adams is asking fair value for peak Jack Eichel and teams have reasons to doubt they will be getting peak Jack Eichel. I think the very fact Jack is on the market is a red flag to GMs. To a man, they are saying "if I had a talent like that, I sure as heck would not be trading him."

Many of you think it is simply because he is 'broken' and his repair is doubtful. I see Jack playing scrimmage games and hear about multiple teams being interested and am skeptical that is solely the case; if it was, steps would have been taken to fix his neck by now.

I agree he wears the record, rightly or wrongly.

I also think he wears the character questions — the coach-killing, backcheck-coasting, Kane-buddy, eye-rolling, 4th-liner-belittling, me-centric questions.

Rightly or wrongly.

The first two sentences illustrate the disconnect. Fans aren't supposed to think like GMs though.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I am of the opinion Jack should worthy of a haul.

To date, no GM has agreed, which I take as proof that I'm wrong.

My conclusion is that Adams is asking fair value for peak Jack Eichel and teams have reasons to doubt they will be getting peak Jack Eichel. I think the very fact Jack is on the market is a red flag to GMs. To a man, they are saying "if I had a talent like that, I sure as heck would not be trading him."

Many of you think it is simply because he is 'broken' and his repair is doubtful. I see Jack playing scrimmage games and hear about multiple teams being interested and am skeptical that is solely the case; if it was, steps would have been taken to fix his neck by now.

I agree he wears the record, rightly or wrongly.

I also think he wears the character questions — the coach-killing, backcheck-coasting, Kane-buddy, eye-rolling, 4th-liner-belittling, me-centric questions.

Rightly or wrongly.

 

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is all fair but the context for my post here was the perception of that 19-20 season.

If "that" IS Jack Eichel, going forward, he's one of the most valuable assets in the league. 

GM's are definitely saying right now they aren't willing to bet on that - but my argument was under the condition he did return to THAT Jack. You can include any perceived warts you want that were there at the time, but I'm confident if you could somehow guarantee that production wasn't an outlier but rather the obvious continuation of what had been a consistent upward trend in production, and that he'd remain healthy, the offers would be significantly different. Those two things being the biggest factors. 

I don not believe that "character" concerns are ruling the day, here. 

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

The first two sentences illustrate the disconnect. Fans aren't supposed to think like GMs though.

There were two things being discussed though I thought, the value of Jack in a trade as perceived by other GMs and what we and the league perceived his 19-20 season to be. 

There are a myriad of issues laid out in 284 pages and in the last few posts for why his trade value is not reflective of that singular season. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

19 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

If "that" IS Jack Eichel, going forward, he's one of the most valuable assets in the league. 

GM's are definitely saying right now they aren't willing to bet on that - but my argument was under the condition he did return to THAT Jack. You can include any perceived warts you want that were there at the time, but I'm confident if you could somehow guarantee that production wasn't an outlier but rather the obvious continuation of what had been a consistent upward trend in production, and that he'd remain healthy, the offers would be significantly different. Those two things being the biggest factors. 

I don not believe that "character" concerns are ruling the day, here. 

I don't think they are either. GMs forgive all if it comes to wins. But I believe they are a consideration.

You can talk about 19/20 being the peak of a steady upward trend, or you can also talk about it being an outlier under optimum conditions. Where he had a coach who kissed his ass daily, fed him all the ice time he wanted, in the way he wanted it, with exactly the linemates he wanted (i.e. not Skinner). And the team still sucked.

Over his career Jack is roughly a 25-goal, 70-point scorer who has played 70 games just twice. He makes $10 million and appears to be high-maintenance.

That — not a top-10 MVP candidate — is what his track record shows, and the price a prudent GM pays.

That is why no one is bucking up Zegras Comtois Perreault and a 1st.

Jack is also an amazing talent. This year is also an outlier. That's why the Sabres have not, and should not, settled for Kravtsov, Jones and Georgiev.

At some point an offer will hit a sweet spot in between.

Edited August 27, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

Also, even beyond individual contextual factors, I've spoken to this before - what a player is garnering on the trade market doesn't give an objective measure of one's value as a player, it gives you an objective measure of what one's value is in terms of specifically the trade market. Discussion of whether we overrate our Sabres in terms of measuring their performance can't seamlessly be melded with discussion of what a player is "worth" on the market. It's not always, and often not accurately representative. Was Sam Reinhart, a bonafide, proven 1st line player's value equal to that if a 50/50 NHLer and a longshot prospect? On the market, apparently - but the expected on ice contribution out the door was significantly higher than the expected contribution coming back. 

Now you may say, well, the market still showcases a player's trade value relative to other players, therefore providing an objective comparison and a way to fairly compare players. But this would be false - as the market is time and space dependent. What did Buchnevich fetch? D-men seemed to go for a lot though, this summer, right? It's always fluctuation. You can't compare deals over time straight up against each other because the market at any given time is adherent to different parameters.