Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[Thorner]

39 minutes ago, dudacek said:

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 it 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.

He is also an amazing talent. 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.

I disagree with the bolded outright. Particularly the bit about the Prudent GM. 

That's like looking at a player who just completed years aged 25-30 at a career pace, judging him to be that player, based on his track record, and paying him a contract for the coming years accordingly. Paying no attention to aging trends. The prudent GM thinks of where the player is going. 

In both cases. There's a curve in both scenarios. 

Edit - this in terms of your analysis of his production rate and "track record" there in. 

It probably also bears mentioning that he's eclipsed the games played mark you referred to, for all intents and purposes 3 times, as we can hardly fault him for playing 68 games in a 69 game schedule the year Covid called things off

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I disagree with the bolded outright. Particularly the bit about the Prudent GM. 

That's like looking at a player who just completed years aged 25-30 at a career pace, judging him to be that player, and paying him a contract for the coming years accordingly. Paying not attention to aging trends. The prudent GM thinks of where the player is going. 

In both cases. There's a curve in both scenarios. 

If a prudent GM is paying close attention to historic trends of player production, he understands that 19/20 represents peak Jack and a season that will likely be matched maybe only once or twice throughout the rest of his career.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Edit - this in terms of your analysis of his production rate and "track record" there in. 

It probably also bears mentioning that he's eclipsed the games played mark you referred to, for all intents and purposes 3 times, as we can hardly fault him for playing 68 games in a 69 game schedule the year Covid called things off

He has only hit 70 points twice as well, but you aren't being pedantic about me calling him a 70-point scorer 😜

I think my point stands.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

If a prudent GM is paying close attention to historic trends of player production, he understands that 19/20 represents peak Jack and a season that will likely be matched maybe only once or twice throughout the rest of his career.

I'm not sure I'd say that honestly. Jack was merely entering his prime that season. That was his breakout year, and it was being referred to as such at the time. 

Were we really saying, in the midst of his breakout year, "well, I guess it's mostly downhill from here". I'm pretty skeptical of that. Players his age are still getting better. We are talking about a a young emerging superstar - injury concerns somehow aside, he'll probably get better, ESPECIALLY in terms of 200 foot game, which he had begun to significantly improve. 

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure I'd say that honestly. Jack was merely entering his prime that season. That was his breakout year, and it was being referred to as such at the time. 

Were we really saying, in the midst of his breakout year, "well, I guess it's mostly downhill from here". I'm pretty skeptical of that. Players his age are still getting better. We are talking about a a young emerging superstar - injury concerns somehow aside, he'll probably get better, ESPECIALLY in terms of 200 foot game, which he had begun to significantly improve. 

Superstar is a bit of a stretch. He’s in the top 15 centers in the league. Our fanbase has a tendency to act like he is Mark Messier or something. Jack is an injury prone PPG 1C. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

He has only hit 70 points twice as well, but you aren't being pedantic about me calling him a 70-point scorer 😜

I think my point stands.

Because we are having a bizarro conversation where Eichel's production rate going forward is slave to what he did at 18 19 and 20 haha. Jack Eichel had 82 points 2 seasons ago, at twenty two, and 78 points in 68 the following, in a 69 game season, so I'm going to give him his ~ 90 points. At age 23.

Again, we have isolated production here and allowed a "if returned to health" caveat, right? 

82 points and 90 points at age 22 and 23, on an upward trend, ON A HORRIBLE TEAM, does not equate to a prudent GM evaluating him as a 70 point scorer. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

Superstar is a bit of a stretch. He’s in the top 15 centers in the league. Our fanbase has a tendency to act like he is Mark Messier or something. Jack is an injury prone PPG 1C. 

If what Jack did in 2019-20, on a bad team, finishing top 10 in league scoring, top 10 in MVP voting, in a season that started at age 23 isn't akin to that of an EMERGING superstar, I dunno what to say. 

Emerging. I find it hilarious that the tone is now, well, that probably wasn't going to be who he was going to be.

When at the time it was, "ooo, he jumped at the same time as MacKinnon!"

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure I'd say that honestly. Jack was merely entering his prime that season. That was his breakout year, and it was being referred to as such at the time. 

Were we really saying, in the midst of his breakout year, "well, I guess it's mostly downhill from here". I'm pretty skeptical of that. Players his age are still getting better. We are talking about a a young emerging superstar - injury concerns somehow aside, he'll probably get better, ESPECIALLY in terms of 200 foot game, which he had begun to significantly improve. 

I think it's more like '75 was for Bert and 90 for Sneaky Pete.

I think the stat lines for a lot of stars look a lot theirs.

 

[7+6=13]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

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. 

No, I think the need for Jack to play for us is less necessary because we weren't active in free agency.  If we had been, the situation would be worse IMO because he'd be depended on for us to be competitive.  We all already know we're likely not to be, so the blow of him not playing is easier to take.  Hence I said 'perfect situation".  

Of course he's our most valuable piece, cmon.  I just totally disagree that we're in peril right now.  I see two outcomes that are good for the Sabres.  One is, we wait until he can demonstrate to potential trade partners that he's healthy and his value rises.  The other is trading him for less because he's actually damaged or at significant risk of not being the same player and we unloaded the huge contract.  

IMO, there's only one scenario that we lose.  That's if we trade Jack for nothing of serious value and he heals (surgery or not) and is the same great player for the other team.  My point is, we're in the drivers seat to have every opportunity to not make that happen to us.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think it's more like '75 was for Bert and 90 for Sneaky Pete.

I think the stat lines for a lot of stars look a lot theirs.

 

But looking at Gil, he remained at that ~90 point level for years and years after it. Jack going back down to 70s after establishing at 90s is a much bigger percentage drop, and Jack is two years younger when comparing those years. And it still doesn't factor in the development Jack was undergoing in other areas of his game. Crosby's production has gone down a bit, it's almost unanimous he's a way better hockey player in recent years than he was when he had the raw point totals. 

The point here is that Jack was/is just entering his prime still. We can haggle over numbers but the spirit of your argument was that he should be judged on the totality of his work and not with more regard for trajectory and because of his age, status, what we saw him look like on ice that year, visually...he was a player on the upswing. 

We can post stats for whoever - I could post Mark Scheifele's who's continued to go up. MacKinnon, etc

3 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

No, I think the need for Jack to play for us is less necessary because we weren't active in free agency.  If we had been, the situation would be worse IMO because he'd be depended on for us to be competitive.  We all already know we're likely not to be, so the blow of him not playing is easier to take.  Hence I said 'perfect situation".  

Of course he's our most valuable piece, cmon.  I just totally disagree that we're in peril right now.  I see two outcomes that are good for the Sabres.  One is, we wait until he can demonstrate to potential trade partners that he's healthy and his value rises.  The other is trading him for less because he's actually damaged or at significant risk of not being the same player and we unloaded the huge contract.  

IMO, there's only one scenario that we lose.  That's if we trade Jack for nothing of serious value and he heals (surgery or not) and is the same great player for the other team.  My point is, we're in the drivers seat to have every opportunity to not make that happen to us.

You'd be surprised. 

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

No, I think the need for Jack to play for us is less necessary because we weren't active in free agency.  If we had been, the situation would be worse IMO because he'd be depended on for us to be competitive.  We all already know we're likely not to be, so the blow of him not playing is easier to take.  Hence I said 'perfect situation".  

Of course he's our most valuable piece, cmon.  I just totally disagree that we're in peril right now.  I see two outcomes that are good for the Sabres.  One is, we wait until he can demonstrate to potential trade partners that he's healthy and his value rises.  The other is trading him for less because he's actually damaged or at significant risk of not being the same player and we unloaded the huge contract.  

IMO, there's only one scenario that we lose.  That's if we trade Jack for nothing of serious value and he heals (surgery or not) and is the same great player for the other team.  My point is, we're in the drivers seat to have every opportunity to not make that happen to us.

More to it than that, though. On the best day, with a fully healthy Jack, history shows it's difficult to trade the best player in a deal and come out on the winning end of it. The trade is a perilous one to make regardless of the things you mention we are waiting on.

I get that you are saying within the context of the situation that we don't "lose" under the scenario where he really is hurt and we get the according return, but I'm saying: of course we lose. I'm speaking in the macro, though. Even if we make out "good" on the trade, having to trade your franchise C for a low return because he got seriously hurt is definitely "losing". It's definitely a disadvantageous situation. Maybe no one to blame, but that's not the point I'm making. 

[dudacek]

29 minutes ago, Thorny said:

But looking at Gil, he remained at that ~90 point level for years and years after it. Jack going back down to 70s after establishing at 90s is a much bigger percentage drop, and Jack is two years younger when comparing those years. And it still doesn't factor in the development Jack was undergoing in other areas of his game. Crosby's production has gone down a bit, it's almost unanimous he's a way better hockey player in recent years than he was when he had the raw point totals. 

The point here is that Jack was/is just entering his prime still. We can haggle over numbers but the spirit of your argument was that he should be judged on the totality of his work and not with more regard for trajectory and because of his age, status, what we saw him look like on ice that year, visually...he was a player on the upswing. 

We can post stats for whoever - I could post Mark Scheifele's who's continued to go up. MacKinnon, etc

You'd be surprised. 

What I was trying to point out is that both of those players built toward breakout 100-point seasons - a level they reached again only once more in their careers, for a variety of reasons.

I think it is more likely that Jack hits 80 points one or two more times in his career than it happens 5 or 6 more times.

Crosby had 120 points in his second year and has never come close to that again. since then he broke 100 four times, yet he failed to hit 90 points 10 times.

Counting on Jack to be very good is prudent. Counting on him to have several more seasons like 19/20 is not.

Edited August 27, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorner]

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

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.

I'm sorry, I need to go back to this haha

Removing the latest injury concern from the equation, if I may:

Travel in your mind's eye back to the end of the 2019-20 season, everything you know about Jack remains the same except he doesn't have the current neck issue. If you, dudacek, were the Owner of the Calgary Flames, in your heart-of-hearts right now would you say you'd tell your GM, at the time, to pay a price accordant to that of a 70 point scorer, other concerns included, and not more? 

And don't say "Well with the way GMs think" - you said "prudent" GM so that means we are already dealing in opinion as it's the GMs you've personally adjudged to "have it right". 

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

What I was trying to point out is that both of those players built toward breakout 100-point seasons - a level they reached again only once more in their careers, for a variety of reasons.

I think it is more likely that Jack hits 80 points one or two more times in his career than it happens 5 or 6 more times.

Crosby had 120 points in his second year and has never come close to that again. since then he broke 100 four times, yet he failed to hit 90 points 10 times.

Counting on Jack to be very good is prudent. Counting on him to have several more seasons like 19/20 is not.

This is extremely common for top offensive players.  They hit their point total peak in their early 20’s, and then maintain a high level of play but the point totals decrease a bit as they start playing a more complete 200 ft game.

[Hoss]

Sorry if already posted

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

What I was trying to point out is that both of those players built toward breakout 100-point seasons - a level they reached again only once more in their careers, for a variety of reasons.

I think it is more likely that Jack hits 80 points one or two more times in his career than it happens 5 or 6 more times.

Crosby had 120 points in his second year and has never come close to that again. since then he broke 100 four times, yet he failed to hit 90 points 10 times.

Counting on Jack to be very good is prudent. Counting on him to have several more seasons like 19/20 is not.

That's fine, but my point was that you went too low on production evaluation. I wouldn't evaluate him as a 70 point player - is that the accordant price you'd be willing to pay to, if you were trading for him? You honestly would not pay the price determined to be the cost of an 80 point player? As in, the other team offered the return you consider fair for an 80 point scorer, do you turn that down?

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

This is extremely common for top offensive players.  They hit their point total peak in their early 20’s, and then maintain a high level of play but the point totals decrease a bit as they start playing a more complete 200 ft game.

But that's the thing - he was talking overall track record. It's one thing to say you don't expect his raw point totals to stay that high, but do you honestly think it's more prudent to judge the value you'd get from Jack for the coming 5 years as an average of what his career has been to date?

I don't see how you can ignore performance trend. The "track record" being used was a career summary. 

It would make more sense to pay based on what Jack has been the last 3, not the last 6. Considering his age and trend. 

Crosby improved upon the player he was then. But the argument I was opposing had Eichel being apparently properly valued by saying NOT to judge him to be the player he had become, the big points season in question. His point was he should be adjudged to be lesser than that, that the season represented an outlier, potentially, overall. "That - not a top 10 mvp candidate - is what his track record shows". Maybe Sid's raw totals dropped but the point is he continued to be what he established as, even got better. 

With Jack it's being said it would be prudent to assume he'll regress. I do not share that view of Eichel as a talent. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[PromoTheRobot]

8 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Sorry if already posted

Jack changing agents? Is he disappointed the other guys failed to spring him?

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

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.

I agree with much of this but I think you are glossing over the injury, which IMHO continues to be the primary reason that he hasn't been traded yet.

He has a spinal injury that hasn't responded to rest/rehab.  He most likely needs surgery, and the type of surgery he wants has never been performed on an NHL player (or, I believe, on an NBA, NFL or MLB player).  The Sabres are not going to permit him to have that type of surgery. 

That is an enormous obstacle that simply can't be overcome unless and until either (i) another GM decides to live with the $50MM risk on Jack's contract AND with paying KA's presumably steep price or (ii) KA decides to drop his price to an ROR-or-lower level.  I do not think option (i) will happen.

We're in an indefinite stalemate that IMHO will only end with Jack somehow getting healthy and showing top form again in NHL games OR by KA agreeing to a fire-sale price.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

 

[dudacek]

34 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm sorry, I need to go back to this haha

Removing the latest injury concern from the equation, if I may:

Travel in your mind's eye back to the end of the 2019-20 season, everything you know about Jack remains the same except he doesn't have the current neck issue. If you, dudacek, were the Owner of the Calgary Flames, in your heart-of-hearts right now would you say you'd tell your GM, at the time, to pay a price accordant to that of a 70 point scorer, other concerns included, and not more? 

And don't say "Well with the way GMs think" - you said "prudent" GM so that means we are already dealing in opinion as it's the GMs you've personally adjudged to "have it right". 

So we’re talking Tkachuk, Zary, Pelletier and a 1st, or holding out for Monahan, Zary and a 1st?

Oh, I think if I was Calgary’s owner, I’d authorize paying top-10 price given the state of my franchise.

My GM would be smart to talk me out of it though.

29 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That's fine, but my point was that you went too low on production evaluation. I wouldn't evaluate him as a 70 point player - is that the accordant price you'd be willing to pay to, if you were trading for him? You honestly would not pay the price determined to be the cost of an 80 point player? As in, the other team offered the return you consider fair for an 80 point scorer, do you turn that down?

Does an 80-point scorer means Auston Matthews and 70-point scorer means Mark Schiefele?

[dudacek]

Brisson is also Owen Power’s agent.

Personally, I see this as a move that could shake loose the logjam.

Brisson has way more clout and connections than Fish. He could bridge communication gaps and leverage something here.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

So we’re talking Tkachuk, Zary, Pelletier and a 1st, or holding out for Monahan, Zary and a 1st?

Oh, I think if I was Calgary’s owner, I’d authorize paying top-10 price given the state of my franchise.

My GM would be smart to talk me out of it though.

Does an 80-point scorer means Auston Matthews and 70-point scorer means Mark Schiefele?

Point totals only served to muddy the waters I'm thinking, honestly. Let's move away from that. 

What I was trying to focus on was this quote:

"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."

The examples being used of Gil Perreault and Sidney Crosby, when those guys "arrived", they stayed. They were who they showed themselves to be, point totals aside. Your argument seems to be that the smart course of action would be to trade for Eichel as if he had not truly emerged as the player he showed himself to be in 2019-20. 

It's a reasonable side to take, needing to see more - I was just under the impression that you yourself believed that when Eichel arrived last year, and showed himself to be an MVP level player at 24, that that was the real him, at least for the next 5 years. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Thorny

[French Collection]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Brisson is also Owen Power’s agent.

Personally, I see this as a move that could shake loose the logjam.

Brisson has way more clout and connections than Fish. He could bridge communication gaps and leverage something here.

Brisson also has other doctors and such to consult with on the injury front. He is well known amongst the GMs and his opinion would carry more weight than Fish.

[pi2000]

Would love to listen on KA's first conversation with Brisson.