Jack Eichel: Trade rumors and speculation

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

It’s more the fact that the  company that insures Eichel’s Contract would void the policy leaving the Sabres Responsible for up to 50 Million in guaranteed Salary if he cannot play.  The caveat and the risk the Sabres could take is 10 Million in LTIR Cap Space per year might be desirable to the Leafs, Kings, Tampa or Montreal and that they would take His Deal

When Brawndo offers stuff like this, it's definitely not blather.

That still  leaves me wondering about other team's willingness to take on the risk though. Are they confident enough of the operation's success they are OK with the voided policy?

And basically only willing to take that risk on, if their offer for Eichel is peanuts?

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

A large contributing factor to this was Pegula blocking a trade of Jack and Krueger having too much control over personnel. A decision was made to make one last run with the core group, that’s where the Taylor Hall makes us a Cup Contender comes from.

Wait, what? KA had a deal for Eichel in place and Pegula nixed it? First I’ve heard this. Wow. KA has even more of my sympathy now. 

[Hoss]

15 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I look for actual quoted sources. So until anyone from the Wild or Ducks actually goes on the record, it’s all conjecture in my mind. But allowing the ADR is only half the equation. What are those teams actually offering in terms of value in a trade? All I’ve heard is rumors and they were underwhelming to say the least. 

Do we even have ON THE RECORD that Jack wants ADR and the team won't let him? If not, it's all just conjecture in your mind.

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Just to be clear here, because there is a lot of overlap in where you and I are coming from, I do not agree whatsoever with the bolded.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for this situation. I do believe it is Kevyn Adams job to fix it and that digging in has not fixed it yet and shows no signs of fixing it in the future.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but I believe it's primarily (aka more than half) the responsibility of the team.

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

A Russo Quote is as good as getting it directly from The Wild. 
 

Scott Burnside was embedded in the Wild Draft Room on the  weekend of the draft. 
 

He mentioned a conversation they were having about Eichel and that the potential return was on a dry erase board. 
One of the front office personnel mentioned that’s a lot for Him, and another responded with but it’s Jack Eichel. 

And yet nobody from the Wild is wiling to go on record even though “it’s Jack Eichel.” Not questioning Russo so much,  I just need more to be convinced there’s legs to this story. 

[Brawndo]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Wait, what? KA had a deal for Eichel in place and Pegula nixed it? First I’ve heard this. Wow. KA has even more of my sympathy now. 

No, Pegula allowed Adams to gauge interest around the league, but wouldn’t allow a deal to occur.
 

No formal deals where agreed on. 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Wait, what? KA had a deal for Eichel in place and Pegula nixed it? First I’ve heard this. Wow. KA has even more of my sympathy now. 

Without putting words in Brawndo's mouth I read that as Pegula nixing the idea of pursuing an Eichel trade, rather than nixing an offer already on the table, but I'm sure he will clarify .

Imagine learning that the Rangers' "fair" offer for a healthy Eichel was actually fair and was nixed by Terry in favour of Taylor Hall, Ralph Krueger, Cody Eakin and the current Eichel mess.

Par for the course for this decade of suffering.

[Brawndo]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

And yet nobody from the Wild is wiling to go on record even though “it’s Jack Eichel.” Not questioning Russo so much,  I just need more to be convinced there’s legs to this story. 

Burnside nor anyone else from The Athletic or any reporter from that matter would ever be allowed into a war room if names were used.  Burnside did mention that Randy Sexton was one of the people in the room though and He would have the best info on Jack. 
 

Russo and Burnside’s Reporting is good enough for me to believe there is a real fire behind that smoke

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Do we even have ON THE RECORD that Jack wants ADR and the team won't let him? If not, it's all just conjecture in your mind.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but I believe it's primarily (aka more than half) the responsibility of the team.

Are you being serious? Because if you are, then you simply haven’t been paying attention. You may want to revisit the John Vogel tweet from late July that included an expansive on the record statement from Fish. There’s Dr. Prusmack’s statements on the matter as well. 

But you already know all that. 
 

Have a good evening.

 

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

No, Pegula allowed Adams to gauge interest around the league, but wouldn’t allow a deal to occur.
 

No formal deals where agreed on. 

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it’s pretty well known that KA was making inquiries. Nice of Pegula to actually let his GM act like, you know, a GM. It’s a shame it couldn’t get done before Eichel got hurt. Let’s hope Pegula learned his lesson.

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Burnside nor anyone else from The Athletic or any reporter from that matter would ever be allowed into a war room if names were used.  Burnside did mention that Randy Sexton was one of the people in the room though and He would have the best info on Jack. 
 

Russo and Burnside’s Reporting is good enough for me to believe there is a real fire behind that smoke

Thanks again for the added insight here.

Unlike some around here, I don’t assume KA screwed the pooch because he may have said no to a team that was willing to assume the risk of the ADR procedure and make a deal.  What’s the nature of that risk assumption in real terms? What’s the nature of that potential trade structure in real terms? Has Russo or anyone expanded on those aspects? 

Great, the Wild are interested. But that, in and of itself, means little. 

[Hoss]

34 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Are you being serious? Because if you are, then you simply haven’t been paying attention. You may want to revisit the John Vogel tweet from late July that included an expansive on the record statement from Fish. There’s Dr. Prusmack’s statements on the matter as well. 

But you already know all that. 
 

Have a good evening.

 

Looked up the statement. Wasn't sure if it specifically mentioned the surgery but it did. Prior to that it was all conjecture.

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, Brawndo said:

A Russo Quote is as good as getting it directly from The Wild. 
 

Scott Burnside was embedded in the Wild Draft Room on the  weekend of the draft. 
 

He mentioned a conversation they were having about Eichel and that the potential return was on a dry erase board. 
One of the front office personnel mentioned that’s a lot for Him, and another responded with but it’s Jack Eichel. 

I'd trade Jack Eichel straight up for Marco Rossi and a pick. If I could get Rossi, Addison, and a 1st in 2023, deal done. 

[mjd1001]

Here is something that I think some people may know but no one's really talking about... And it's not a definite it's a what if but I think the following is likely:

Eichel wants his surgery. The sabres want a different surgery. Is one surgery better than the other? Maybe. But what we do know is the surgery that the sabres want has been performed a lot more, the one Eichel wants has been used less often on hockey players.

Now if the surgery the sabres want fails, he still is compensated in his contract because the team agreed to it. If Jack gets his own surgery and the sabres don't approve of it, it seems like a sticking point is Jack wants the sabres to approve of that because if they do and the surgery fails he still guaranteed his contract. From the sabres point of view that doesn't make sense nor does it for most other teams... Why?

To guarantee the greater portion of the 80 million dollar contract... There's insurance involved. What we don't know but is likely that... Is whoever ensures the contracts, they may be the ones who are ultimately making these decisions. The insurance company may say to the sabers or to any NHL team... If he gets a surgery that we know has been done in the past we will insure that contract, but if he does something that the insurance company thinks is not as common or experimental, they may not be providing insurance, putting all of the onus on the team.

That may not be only the reason the sabers don't want to do this, but why no other NHL team wants to trade for him now. They either want him to get the same surgery the sabres do because it will be more likely to be insured if it fails, or they want the sabres or Eichel to take the risk and see the results.

The lack of a trade may not be on Adams or him asking too much. It might be about which surgery he gets, how it's going to pay for his contract if it fails regarding insurance, and who was going to take on that risk... Jack, Buffalo, or any other team that makes a deal for him.

 

[Zamboni]

5 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Here is something that I think some people may know but no one's really talking about... And it's not a definite it's a what if but I think the following is likely:

Eichel wants his surgery. The sabres want a different surgery. Is one surgery better than the other? Maybe. But what we do know is the surgery that the sabres want has been performed a lot more, the one Eichel wants has been used less often on hockey players.

Now if the surgery the sabres want fails, he still is compensated in his contract because the team agreed to it. If Jack gets his own surgery and the sabres don't approve of it, it seems like a sticking point is Jack wants the sabres to approve of that because if they do and the surgery fails he still guaranteed his contract. From the sabres point of view that doesn't make sense nor does it for most other teams... Why?

To guarantee the greater portion of the 80 million dollar contract... There's insurance involved. What we don't know but is likely that... Is whoever ensures the contracts, they may be the ones who are ultimately making these decisions. The insurance company may say to the sabers or to any NHL team... If he gets a surgery that we know has been done in the past we will insure that contract, but if he does something that the insurance company thinks is not as common or experimental, they may not be providing insurance, putting all of the onus on the team.

That may not be only the reason the sabers don't want to do this, but why no other NHL team wants to trade for him now. They either want him to get the same surgery the sabres do because it will be more likely to be insured if it fails, or they want the sabres or Eichel to take the risk and see the results.

The lack of a trade may not be on Adams or him asking too much. It might be about which surgery he gets, how it's going to pay for his contract if it fails regarding insurance, and who was going to take on that risk... Jack, Buffalo, or any other team that makes a deal for him.

 

Good points. The insurance angle has been discussed several times. Along with everything else 😂

spell check your Sabres👍🏼

[PromoTheRobot]

8 hours ago, Hoss said:

I played exactly how I would have played it: I watched and rolled my eyes. I don’t make millions to make these decisions.

So you like the easy part (criticism) but not the hard part. 

[PromoTheRobot]

8 hours ago, Brawndo said:

.

It’s more the fact that the  company that insures Eichel’s Contract would void the policy leaving the Sabres Responsible for up to 50 Million in guaranteed Salary if he cannot play.  The caveat and the risk the Sabres could take is 10 Million in LTIR Cap Space per year might be desirable to the Leafs, Kings, Tampa or Montreal and that they would take His Deal

See above

Why is it we have not heard this from any reporters? Seems pretty important. Is insurance one of those things teams never speak of? 

[nfreeman]

Well, based on @Brawndo’s description and Russo’s and Burnside’s reporting, it seems likely that the Wild were willing to trade for Jack and allow him to have the ADR surgery he wants — but the trade return for the Sabres wouldn’t be much more than a dry erase board.  So they would’ve taken the headache off of the Sabres’ hands, but for a minimal return in trade — and who knows how much of the contract they would’ve required the Sabres to retain.

For those criticizing KA here:  would you be OK with Eichel being traded for a 2nd round pick, no salary retention and that’s all?

I think this kind of trade is pretty likely the only offer that is available to KA right now, and I don’t think that is going to change until Jack shows that he’s healthy.

I also think that KA has decided that rather than making that type of trade, he is going to let Jack sit and stew until he gets fusion surgery, at which point he presumably will be able to play again and be traded.

It’s a crappy situation all around.  

[darksabre]

24 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, based on @Brawndo’s description and Russo’s and Burnside’s reporting, it seems likely that the Wild were willing to trade for Jack and allow him to have the ADR surgery he wants — but the trade return for the Sabres wouldn’t be much more than a dry erase board.  So they would’ve taken the headache off of the Sabres’ hands, but for a minimal return in trade — and who knows how much of the contract they would’ve required the Sabres to retain.

For those criticizing KA here:  would you be OK with Eichel being traded for a 2nd round pick, no salary retention and that’s all?

I think this kind of trade is pretty likely the only offer that is available to KA right now, and I don’t think that is going to change until Jack shows that he’s healthy.

I also think that KA has decided that rather than making that type of trade, he is going to let Jack sit and stew until he gets fusion surgery, at which point he presumably will be able to play again and be traded.

It’s a crappy situation all around.  

 

And to expand on this, I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere, which is that if anyone thinks this situation will be resolved quickly, they're going to be disappointed.

We have, at this point, both a GM (and owners) and a player who no longer want that player on this team. KA wants him gone, but the injuries screwed the whole thing up, and despite the fact that I don't believe Jack wanted out prior to the injuries, he certainly wants out now that the injuries are keeping him from playing hockey at all. Adams doesn't care about Jack's feelings or his desire to get back on the ice, he only cares about maximizing the trade value to move on from a player they don't want around.

The problem with being focused on Jack as an asset and nothing else, is that right now his value is absolutely the lowest it's ever been. So the only choice they have is to rehabilitate the asset's value. They aren't just going to "rid themselves of the problem" like some people think they must be itching to do. I assure you they do not give a damn.

So don't be surprised if Jack is still here in December. Or May. Or August... Or October....

Some don't think he'll ever play for the Sabres again. I think...it depends.

 

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

Good points. The insurance angle has been discussed several times. Along with everything else 😂

spell check your Sabres👍🏼

I know the insurance angle has been discussed, but it seems like the conversation quickly moves away from it, and people get entrenched in their positions of either being 100% for the team or 100% for Jack.

Reading through this thread, it just seems a lot of people don't understand the insurance angle or I just ignoring it.

The insurance angle I brought up again because it simply might be this is at a stalemate with absolutely no resolution at all in the near or far future.... unless either Jack decides to get the surgery the team wants, or the team is willing to risk all that money with no insurance just for the right to trade him for future assets.

Until one side gives in and a very very big way, this could go no place forever.

It's not Adam's fault, it's not other teams fault for not giving up enough, it is the situation. Jack has to give in, or the sabres have to risk a lot of money that's uninsured.

I could see the sabres just moving forward and treating Jack as an asset that had a career ending injury or someone who retired... Rather than putting themself on the hook for the remainder of his contract if it won't be insured by letting him get a surgery that he wants and not the team doctors.  And that would be more of an ownership call than a GM call.

From the team's point of view regarding insurance, letting Jack get his choice of surgery is taking on a lot of risk and getting very little reward, especially when the CBA that the players negotiated has it the other way around and the teams have negotiated the right for protection.

And as far as spell checking the team name, I'm on a phone using voice to text. I didn't have time to go back and manually edit every time the team name was spelled out.

Edited September 28, 2021 by mjd1001

[dudacek]

46 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

For those criticizing KA here:  would you be OK with Eichel being traded for a 2nd round pick, no salary retention and that’s all?

I think this kind of trade is pretty likely the only offer that is available to KA right now, and I don’t think that is going to change until Jack shows that he’s healthy.

This is why I'm disappointed in the way Adams has handled this situation.

If the offers have been not even worth considering because of the surgery question, why didn't he simply say two weeks after the draft — either directly from his mouth, or indirectly through an Insider — "It has become clear to us that no one is willing to make a fair offer for Jack until his neck is healed. Therefore we will not be pursuing trade talks until that issue is resolved." And then started negotiations with Jack's team on a way of getting the neck issue resolved that protects the Sabres interests?

He's been flexible where he should have been tough (by putting a broken Jack on the market) and tough when he should be flexible (by not working to find a way to break the surgery impasse)

Edited September 28, 2021 by dudacek

[dudacek]

To add to the above before people sweep in with "how do you know..."

This is my impression created by the messaging put out there by the people involved.

Adams has seemed most focused on showing fans he's steadfast. I would have appreciated more messaging that also shows he's willing and able to solve this problem.

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

To add to the above before people sweep in with "how do you know..."

This is my impression created by the messaging put out there by the people involved.

Adams has seemed most focused on showing fans he's steadfast. I would have appreciated more messaging that also shows he's willing and able to solve this problem.

The public messages are likely part of the negotiating ploy. I would not expect full disclosure in any public messages.  I expect he is using public messages to bolster his negotiating stance.

And that appears to be a pretty secretive process .

Edited September 28, 2021 by Weave

[nfreeman]

28 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is why I'm disappointed in the way Adams has handled this situation.

If the offers have been not even worth considering because of the surgery question, why didn't he simply say two weeks after the draft — either directly from his mouth, or indirectly through an Insider — "It has become clear to us that no one is willing to make a fair offer for Jack until his neck is healed. Therefore we will not be pursuing trade talks until that issue is resolved." And then started negotiations with Jack's team on a way of getting the neck issue resolved that protects the Sabres interests?

He's been flexible where he should have been tough (by putting a broken Jack on the market) and tough when he should be flexible (by not working to find a way to break the surgery impasse)

I think the bolded assumes that such a resolution exists, and that unfortunately a resolution doesn't exist.  I think the most likely fact pattern is:

- Surgery is needed as rest/rehab have not worked.

- Jack wants ADR and is dead set against fusion.

- The Sabres want fusion and are dead set against ADR.

- No one is willing to take Jack's contract, let him have ADR and give the Sabres much more than a dry-erase board.

I think this has pretty much been the situation for months now.

As for why hasn't KA made it known that Jack is off the market until the issue is resolved -- if the above fact pattern is accurate, I'm not sure what the point of doing so would be.  KA's goal is to trade Jack for a good return, not to just unload him so the Sabres can move on.  I would expect that multiple teams kicked the tires on Jack.  KA would have wanted to keep those talks going in the hope that someone would take the plunge. 

As I've said before, KA is ultimately accountable for solving difficult problems and for the team's success or failure.  The Eichel injury very well could be a problem without a solution.  Even if he loses that battle, though, he still needs to win the war, or else he's just another failed Sabres GM.

[darksabre]

The other thing I want to note regarding the Sabres being in this for the long haul is their cap situation.

They have made no moves that would put them in a spot where Eichel coming off LTIR would be a problem for them. I think they fully anticipate that he might be here when his NMC kicks in, and they don't want his cap hit to force them to do anything they don't want to do with respect to that NMC. They want him to waive it and they aren't going to give him any leverage to prevent that from happening.

[dudacek]

36 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

- No one is willing to take Jack's contract, let him have ADR and give the Sabres much more than a dry-erase board.

- Jack wants ADR and is dead set against fusion.

- The Sabres want fusion and are dead set against ADR.

-KA's goal is to trade Jack for a good return, not to just unload him so the Sabres can move on. 

 

If the first two hold true, then one of the bold must change in order for there to be a resolution.

I don't think either of the first two will change, and if anyone here does, they have yet to speak up and tell us why.

Edited September 28, 2021 by dudacek